The American Spectator : Obama Accepts Paul Ryan's Premise

Clare Shanahan| 3.11.10 @ 6:30AM

I don't understand why people won't show a little more faith in our president. We elected him because we thought he would help our country solve tough problems, and now we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he tells us his health bill is what we need to improve health care.

Deborah D | 3.11.10 @ 7:08AM

I have faith in our president. Faith that he is willfully sending our country off the cliff. Faith that he actually hates the American people -- for proof -- just look at how he apologizes to the world for everything we do and everything we are.

He wants to "fundamentally change" the US of A. That doesn't sound like a love of country to me. I could write a book, but I'm sure others have their own many thousands of reasons for not having "faith" in a man so full of himself and so disdainful of the laws, rules and regulations of the country that he will pursue an insane course of action that the country does not want by any means necessary. Regardless of what it will do to the country.

Faith? Faith has nothing to do with it. Destruction of the United States is nothing to have faith in.

Charlie| 3.11.10 @ 10:51AM

I have been a conservative Republican all of my life, and don't agree with everything the current administration trying to do, but I actually feel sorry for someone who is so cynical, and mislead, as Debra D apparently is.

To say "I have faith in our president. Faith that he actually hates the American people -- for proof -- just look at how he apologizes to the world for everything we do and everything we are." clearly means she is one of the arrogant "ugly American's" who are intensely disliked throughout much of the world. These are the kind of folks who should keep quiet while we try to restore some of the respect we once had.

TIna| 3.11.10 @ 11:59AM

Debra is right on the money
We have nothing to apologize for!
Numerous Americans have given their lives in support of freedom for people in countries around the world. I am offended by you and BY Obama.
OBAMAS is the ARROGANT ELITIST and to the rest of the world that dislikes us so much
Its time for the USA to put its people 1st and stop spending our tax dollars on people who hate us.
And you are obviously a RINO because you are using a typical Libtard response to someone who disagrees with you by telling them to Shut UP

Bob From District 9| 3.11.10 @ 6:35PM

"Debra is right on the money We have nothing to apologize for! Numerous Americans have given their lives in support of freedom for people in countries around the world. I am offended by you and BY Obama."

Speaking as an old veteran, I find your comments make me wonder why I wasted four years of my life. Relatively few Americans have given their lives in support of freedom for people in other countries. Many have died for this country. Too many have died for this country's interests in other countries. Relatively few have died for those people's freedom.

Look at the record. In Vietnam the locals were a distant second in our concerns. In Iraq it was claimed to be for WMDs, not Iraqi freedom. Had Bush called for a war for Iraqi freedom he would have been laughed out of congress.
And he could never justify the 100,000+Iraqies who have died in this war.
In Afghanistan we were justified in invading, but we didn't even pretend it was for their freedom. Only Bush walked away from that one before it was won. Now Pakistan is also threatened. I'm sure they want to thank you for that.

Deal with the reality, your attitude of disdain and contempt for those in other countries goes back a very long way, and ruled our foreign policy. We do very little for other countries. Hell, France has done more for us than we have done for them. Even WWII we didn't enter for their benefit, but to retaliate for Pearl Harbor.

We do have a lot to apologize for. That you don't see it is the typical attitude of the Ugly American.

Nay Darn| 3.11.10 @ 9:54PM

Bob,
Sorry to step in your space but I just wanted to save readers' some time sifting through some of these mindless rants.
The short answer is there isn't a "right" side to our government. Both sides are too big and self serving. Everyone should invest some time in reading the works of Ayn Rand. Start with The Fountainhead. If you can't read then watch the movie. If you are not moved and stirred, then you are probably a parasite, like most Americans today. By the time everyone finishes Atlases Shrugged most of the liberal Democrats will be gone and time will be better utilized moving emotions to logic.

Elaine Suhre| 3.12.10 @ 12:45AM

Ayn Rand was my idol in my thirties. Atlas Shrugged made a lot of sense to me then. Now that I am way beyond that impressionable age I realize Ms. Rand, for all her good ideas about self responsiblity, (at least that is what I remember), was a Marxist.

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.10 @ 2:44PM

It never fails to amaze me how few people realize exactly that.

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:30PM

Well put, Bob from District 9.

I would guess you're familiar with Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket," eh?

But don't despair. Things COULD be worse. We could be in Hell, forced to drink Zima.

lol

Regards.

Ralph

S Elliott| 3.14.10 @ 12:55AM

Bob,
If this is what you think, why did you serve for four years? You are dead wrong about WW II, Vietnam and Iraq, but your reasons probably would have been right if you had applied them to Cinton's "Holy War" in Yugoslavia instead.

Ralph Novy| 3.15.10 @ 2:52AM

S Elliott:

You know, I think it takes a pretty cockeyed ideological prism to see WWII, Vietnam and Iraq the same way -- and then to lump that Balkans thing into it.

I still want to know more about whatever things might have been going on about a Balkans oil pipeline at stake -- but I'm inclined to think the thing was probably truly about preventing any further "ethnic cleansing." Just wish more had been done in Rwanda and more would be done now in the Congo.

But.....to compare WWII with Vietnam and Iraq. How old are you? If you're more than 15, you should know better than that.

Everette| 3.11.10 @ 12:03PM

Charlie, nations act in their own self interest, not to be liked. I won't go as far as Debra on the President's motives, but I do feel he is hopelessly naive in his assumptions about human behavior. His determination to take over the other 50% of the health care industry that the government doesn't already poorly run is either foolish or naive.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:40PM

why dont you ask a senior if they are willing to give up there medicare before you make an idiotic comment like that.
not ONE senior will ever give up medicare....if its so bad why is it no senior or vet ever gives it up and goes private ?
ASK JOHN MCCAIN HES BEEN ON SOCIALIZED MEDICINE HIS ENTIRE LIFE.

Jonathan| 3.11.10 @ 1:07PM

scott,
Do your research and you will find that those Medicare beneficiaries and Vets are losing access to physicians, because physicians no longer want to deal with Medicare's payment cuts and the way they treat physicians like criminals.

Sue| 3.11.10 @ 2:22PM

I am a senior. I am on medicare. not one of my Doctors would see me if I was not using a supplementary health care policy. the government takes out $99. a month from my social security check for medicare. It is not free. then the government takes out $59. a month for my Humana supplement. Some Doctors won't even take me with the Humana. Why is it that no one covers that issue about medicare? It's not free, I've been paying into the system for 50 years and they still take $99 a month. and I still need to buy more insurance to get in to see a Doctor. Thank God I have no health issues , so far.

scott| 3.11.10 @ 7:29PM

as i hear seniors , it seems like our older generation lives in a bubble . i see complaints about 99 dollars and 59 dollars as supplements . the fact remains that medicare picks up the majority of cost in your treatment. the cost for a family of 4 in nj is roughly 1000 dollars per month .....so you will excuse me if i dont have sympathy. the current private system is a disaster.....for those of you who dont think so you better pray you never have to go private.

darrel.howell| 3.11.10 @ 2:24PM

Medicare is financially insolvent and is, by far, the most frequent denier of services of all coverages. Just because seniors have been coerced into the program by holding their SSA retirement benefits (that THEY funded over a lifetime) contingent on Medicare enrollment, doesn't mean they went into the program with a smile.
My parents had to give up their retirement coverage in order to get their SSA benefits, and regret it every day, but they needed those SSA benefits. Now that they are in Medicare, there is no going back. So OF COURSE they don't want Obama to reduce funding to the program they were forced into (see Brian Hall, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius). Their very lives depend on it. Not a comfortable feeling to have your life dependent on the current political winds or the whim of some unelected, unreachable bureaucrat.

Clasina| 3.11.10 @ 5:21PM

I'm a senior. Also a vet. Not a baby boomer. I would gladly give up medicare if I could find insurance privately. I receive vet benefits. I guess I do feel I deserve some vet benefits. I wouldn't make a big deal of it, however. I've railed on the SS injustice for those coming up behind me. They won't get a dime. My kids are in this fix. You might also consider the fact that we have killed 50 million potential SS/Medicare payers by abortion. Not to mention low birth rates. We don't have the people coming of age to pay for all of this. Mark my words.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:35PM

you just made my point .....you cant get affordable private insurance . its too expensive ...exactly my point .
you deserve benefits because your a vet ? not according to republicans .....remember thats not the capitalistic way ..you need to provide for yourself.

klr56| 3.15.10 @ 10:28PM

The reason the medical expenses are so high is due to a miriad of reasons, including high malpractice insurance, increases in tuition for medical training, government regulations of pharmaceuticals, government policies, greed and lack of personal responsibility that increases need for medical services. Unfortunately the insurance companies have to increase their premiums because the cost of healthcare has dramatically increased. Speaking with a hospital financial auditor recently, he stated that the proposed healthcare bill will do nothing about the cost of care. It will certainly give the government more control over healthcare services but I have yet to have a completely satisfying experience at other government run entities (post office, DMV, Veteran's Adm. Hospital). I'm a healthcare provider who works at a hospital and I can not see any positive affect from this current legislative proposal. They have not been able to agree to the contents of this legislation but they are sure trying to push it into law. It really makes you wonder what their true motif could be and how it will affect the American economy much more the American perople.

Ned| 3.11.10 @ 2:08PM

Scott, you're a nitwit - nobody "gives up" medicare because you CAN'T - if you take Social Security, you MUST also take medicare... if you are eligible for medicare, but have private insurance, your insurer pays only that which medicare will not whether you are on medicare or not, forcing you to either join, or come up with the difference...

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:38PM

hey ned im being facitious ....you moron.
you again make my point .....private insurance covers what medicare doesnt .....medicare has negotiated rates. i know for someone who lives by the word of fox and moronic talking points you should do your homework . do you have any clue what it would cost you if you had to BUY private insurance without medicare as your primary ?
know what your talking about before you open youyr mouth.

John| 3.16.10 @ 2:02AM

The point Ned was making is the fact that Medicare is not voluntary and it's going broke. Sort of sounding like the administrations current proposal, maditory and perhaps going broke also? No one denies the fact that health care is expensive. Driving down costs is important and if Obama can reduce fraud, what's wrong with that? Oh, I know, nothing just too easy to tell the critics to shut up and call them morons. By the way, where did you go to school? Are you trying to mske yourself sound stupid and uneducated? Look at your grammer!

Bob From District 9| 3.11.10 @ 6:39PM

"I do feel he is hopelessly naive in his assumptions about human behavior. His determination to take over the other 50% of the health care industry that the government doesn't already poorly run is either foolish or naive. "

It works in every other industrialized country in the world. It works in covering every one, with medical care equal to ours, and at a cost of 12% of GDP in the most expensive, compared to our 17.5% soon to be 20%.

The difference between 12% and 20% would be a savings of something like $1 trillian/yr. Enough to pay all the costs of expanding coverage under the right winger's most outrageous estimates. Many times over at that.

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:32PM

Bingo.

SHOULD be "nuff said."

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 2:34PM

It is painfully obvious by your very first run-on sentence that your are NOT, nor ever were, a Conservative. Everything Deborah D wrote is accurate and can be well documented. This is not hearsay but comes from Obama's own mouth. Either you have thrown in the towel, so to speak, or your are just another sneaky, conniving liberal trying to sow discord in the conservative ranks. Either way, you are not what you say your are.

Ralph Novy| 3.13.10 @ 12:18AM

"... another sneaky, conniving liberal trying to sow discord in the conservative ranks."

Wowsers.

Takes paranoia to a new level.

John| 3.11.10 @ 4:28PM

Charlie, when a person says he's been a conservative Republican all his life and then wants to silence those who are watching the country be destroyed, is either delusional or a prevaricator. The president couldn't do a better job of destroying the country if he tried. Therefore, I agree with Debra D and am convinced that you are not telling the truth.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:28AM

Bush is gone John. For GOD's sakes, get over it!
Help is on the way.

Here's Your Sign| 3.12.10 @ 2:51PM

Ignorance is bliss...

P.S. Here's Your Sign

Sorry, Charlie--You're a Troll| 3.11.10 @ 7:21PM

Here's what Charlie the Troll SHOULD have written:
***********************************
"I have been a conservative republican all of my wife, and don't agree with everything the current administration is trying to do, but I am shocked, SHOCKED that the American people are being so mean to the nice man in the suit with crisp creases. If he wants to turn the country into a socialistic crap-topia, well, we elected him, so I guess we just have to grin and bear it.

"I am ashamed of my fellow conservatives who would balk at the idea of using the Constitution to line Bo's dog cage. You are hateful meanies!!!

"I'm going to go cry now . . . See what you awful people have done!

"BAAAAAWWWWAAAAA!!!"
******************************

Troll, troll, go away, stay at DailyKos all day!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:29AM

New Definition of a troll=someone who can actually think for themselves instead of parroting FOX news.

Bet | 3.12.10 @ 1:56PM

How does Obama know the health care bill is what we need? He doesn't know what is in it.

Brian H| 3.13.10 @ 2:54AM

The difficulty, Chas, is that by overwhelming margins the effects of American involvement abroad have been positive and even crucial for the survival and/or freedom of those Obozo is apologizing to.

As for apologizing to Islamic nations, you have to be utterly, rigidly, determined not to examine their history and internal cultural priorities to offer apologies rather than demand them.

Obozo was reared, educated, and mentored by anti-Americans, and shows it every day in every way.

Honest C. | 3.11.10 @ 11:20AM

I'm with you, Deb.

If this wasn't such a tragedy, it would be histerically funny.

The american people are screaming for the oversight that is given as a responsibility to the legislature specifically and to the 3 branches broadly, and to tighten spending, and what is the One's solution to get rid of fraud? Why of course MORE Spending!

Lagius Meatius| 3.11.10 @ 12:21PM

I agree with you Charlie & Clare. Deborah D. is acting like one of the arrogant "ugly Americans". First of all, for people to disrespect the president, whom was voted in by the people, through our democracy, is inexcusable. This country has been built by change and reform, not keeping the status quo. Slavery was abolished, men and women have moved into a positive direction in terms of equal rights, and we as a nation are also starting to see the pitfalls of Capitalism, and its effect on the overall benefit of the people. All these things have changed, because we changed them! This is something to be proud of! When Republicans (or Democrats in previous presidential terms) disrespect the president when he represents and implements policy that doesn't fit the opposite party's agenda, I get so upset at the number of lies, and childish accusations, etc., that seem to spew out all over the place! The fact that we have Democrats and Republicans which in any point in time can have a majority, allows us to make real change in this country. This helps minimize the amount of corruption, or bad policy from becoming a permanent nightmare for people. Healthcare needs to change. We need more regulation, and a public option. Insurance companies operate under a profit incentive modality, and when their function is to provide health care for the people of our nation, they do anything they can to minimize costs, and increase profits for their best interests. Anyone who disagrees with this is either far misled, doesn't understand how Capitalism works, or just isn't listening. Insurance companies are not at fault in the most general sense. They are businesses, which are designed to make a profit. The problem is that we don't have a government regulated alternative (public option), and we shouldn't be using the insurance industry for our care. Do to the lack of regulation and true competition, people that need healthcare the most are getting reamed, and left to rot. Let's give Obama a chance, as Bush never made any contribution to healthcare, and this is what the nation needs. Bush focused on war mongering, and imposing fear on America benefiting war profiteers, and killing many, many innocent lives of soldiers, both foreign and domestic (may they rest in peace). Lets change history once again, just as every term tries to do, and make it something that will help those in need.
Peace and love to all of you!

-Lagius

Vernon Rosa| 3.11.10 @ 1:09PM

Lagius...Do you really believe that disagreeing with someone is disrespecting them? Would you be making the same arguement if George W was still in office? The liberals consistently took shots at Bush about anything he did that didn't match up with their beliefs. Was that disrespectful to the President? The liberals still take shots at Bush in their attempts to redirect attention away from the mistakes Obama is making. Even in your letter, Lagius, you attack Bush saying he "focused on war mongering, and imposing fear" etc. etc. Obama may be a very good man, but he is turning out to be a rather ineffectual President. His approval numbers are going south, with good reason, and he has yet to live up to his campaign promises. Obama wants his party to control one sixth of the U. S. budget, (by way of his so-called health care plan), to obtain a strangle hold on the people. I feel sorry for those of you who have been so taken in by him. You can keep your change. I don't want my grandchildren having to pay the trillions of dollars of debt he is forcing on us.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:36AM

Disagreeing wouldn't be disrespectful if the disagreement wasn't based on sheer lies. You seem to have ignored that vital point for some STRANGE reason.

MikeBee| 3.11.10 @ 2:03PM

Lagius,
Your beginning is typical for a liberal posting on AmSpec. Immediately stoop to name-calling. Ugly Americans???? (Try checking out the women in power in your party.....)
You are correct that change has occurred in this country. However, you neglect the FACT that the two changes you mention, namely, the abolition of slavery and the implementation of equal rights, came about IN SPITE OF the Democrat party. It was the Republican party which actively sought to abolish slavery, and who voted in equal rights for all Americans, while the Democrats fought violently to keep blacks in the chains of slavery. The Democrat party did not move this country forward on these issues at all. They had to be defeated on them.

Healthcare: you state that we need more regulation and a public option. Actually, we need LESS regulation, as the massive regulation we have now in this field only increases costs. You mention that the profit motive is what causes insurance companies to be corrupt; typical Marxist/Socialist/Communist crXp we've been hearing for over 100 years. FACT: Two of the largest health insurance carriers in the U.S., Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente are NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. But, Blue Cross just issued its latest mandate that premiums must go up by over 20% year over year. Seems like the non-profit insurance options, which is what a public option would be, are ripping you off a lot more than the profit-making insurance carriers. In fact, it is the government- and state-run options today, Medicare and Medicaid, which are bankrupt. THESE are the insurance programs which need more regulation. A new public option would simply be more of the same bankruptcy, and would eventually lead to a LACK of healthcare coverage for folks, due to its inability to pay for itself.

You DO have a point about the lack of competition, however. It is the Republicans who have offered excellent choices on this one: they wish to do away with the regulations which prohibit insurance companies (and doctors) from operating across state lines. If Blue Cross/Blue Shield in my state of Michigan had more competition, rather than the almost monopoly that it presently has, it wouldn't be able to get away with 20%+ increases in premiums. Glad to see that you agree with the Republican plan.

Finally, Bush's policies with respect to the war. You call Bush a war mongerer and say that he killed many innocents, and many soldiers with his war in Iraq. If you follow the news today, you will note that there have been more soldiers AND more innocent civilians killed in the last year, under Obama, than in either of the last two years of Bush's term in office. Hmmmmm. Sounds like Obama is the war mongerer, not Bush.

Peace and love to you, too!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:39AM

You make a good point: there is too much regulation for in health care costs. HMO's add 31% administrative costs to YOUR bill forcing Doctors to waste valuable and expensive time filling out their forms, and consulting with the HMO to see what type of treatment plan the HMO will choose for the client. Unfortunately, in order for you to believe the opposite is true, you must ignore the current reality and attack anyone who tells you the truth.

MTcasings| 3.11.10 @ 2:12PM

Obamaite suffering from the Dunning–Kruger Effect; a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"

Eric Cartman| 3.11.10 @ 4:59PM

" This helps minimize the amount of corruption"

That's a good one!

Got Education?| 3.12.10 @ 2:57PM

After one look at your monstrosity I realized one would have to be daft to venture into the monograph of such epic length.

Obviously you wanted to make a point: take another few seconds and create paragraphs. If you do not undersstand the concept, try google "paragraphs + usage".

Thanks, from all that try to read your torterous script.

SCOTT| 3.11.10 @ 12:24PM

Are you one of those who were so right on iraq ? if you supported or voted for bush in the last electon ....you were WRONG . so please excuse some of us who dont believe you when you spout nonsense . from the track record of people on the other side of the president ....you have been wrong on so much why should we believe you ? in case you didnt notice the country was racing toward the cliff under REPUBLICAN CONTROL not the presidents. deficits balloned under the GOP ....where was your outrage ?
sit back and let grown ups with a brain run the country ....some of you almost put a senile old man and a hillbilly in the office for goodness sake , how much credibility do you people carry ?

Ned| 3.11.10 @ 2:16PM

nitwit again - perhaps you failed to notice, as with so many who voted for Obamesiah, that in Bush's last two years the Congress was Democrat controlled? or that the triggers for the current recession where set under Dimocrat administrations... or that Dims like Barney Fwank actively blocked efforts to avoid the melt-down we're in now...

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:07PM

Wow the clarity and passion of your well-thought-out argument has persuaded me.
You 'conservatives' are definitely smarter than those dum libruls.
I love it when you call them names or make fun of them. They so deserve it.
Keep on telling it like it is.

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 5:06PM

Mr. Mingo (reminds me of Lord Mongo, but those are bygone days), while I do not condone name calling on either side (but the "left" does seem to be better and more pernicious at it), he makes some valid points. However, Sir, all you offer is empty sarcasm. I'll listen to a valid argument, one with facts, figures and, yes, logic. There's nothing like a rousing but civil debate. Unfortunately, all we get from the left are "ad hominem" attacks because that's all they have to defend their indefensible positions: Just good, ole "bait and switch" chicanery. Not good for the country and a waste of everyone's time.

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:50PM

The "left" is better and more pernicious at ad hominen attacks...and that's "ALL we get from [them]"? [My emphasis.]

??

Wow. What a stunning example of turning reality on its head.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:49PM

thank god hillbillies like you and palin will never see the oval office . let me get this straight ...democrats controlled the house for 2 years and destroyed the country while the republicans who controlled the senate for 8 years and a republican president sat on his rear end and let it happen . based on your bizarre fox news logic ...the highest branch in our govt is the house ...followed by the senate ....and last is the president . what BIZZARO world do you live in hillbilly ned ?
fact ...THE PRESIDENT has the final veto pen .....8 years =bush . wear it with the stench that it bares. fact ...the senat was under GOP control ...you cant change facts.
by your admission either the republicans blew up this country or they were too dumb and were coerced by barney frank of all people to destroy this country . if you people only did a day of research it would help .
by the way the election is over .....the people with an education get to run the country ...now back to your trailor.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:43AM

Bush blocked federal regulators in 2005 from imposing regulations on the banks when they saw this coming that would've minimized this crisis.

Paying off ALL of the failed CRA and subprime loans would've cost $57 billion in November 2008. We've given the banks $16 trillion mostly in back door bailouts.

Obviously you were fed a lie if you believe the failed home loans are the source of the crisis. The question is: Will you keep lying or will you look into this more deeply?

Real American| 3.11.10 @ 2:02PM

He's President, not God (though many of his Obot supporters act otherwise.) Anyway, why have faith in someone who lies every chance he gets.

darrel.howell| 3.11.10 @ 2:34PM

Have FAITH in obama? People have faith in God, not something fallible like a government or a man. If obama is something akin to your God, then feel free to put your faith in him, however, you will be in a very small minority of people who put their faith in a man.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:44AM

Yet here you are asking others to put faith in your opinion :)

Mary S.| 3.11.10 @ 4:36PM

Amen, Sister!

Joy| 3.13.10 @ 9:57PM

I agree whole heartedly with Deborah D. and,
WE didn't elect him..........

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 7:29AM

Clare, whether we have faith in the President is beside the point. It is his facts, his reasoning, and his conclusions on his health care proposals in which we have no faith. We have evaluated his facts and found many of them false. We have evaluated his reasoning and found much of it invalid. This is the basis for the lack of faith in his proposals.

Lagius Meatius| 3.11.10 @ 12:34PM

It's funny how Republican ideas, when agreed upon by the President, become ideas that Republicans no longer like. There appears to be hatred for this man, when he is doing his job. Although philosophical differences contribute to the feud, there has been a lack of political reasoning on the side of the Republicans. A gross abuse of filibustering (we can easily call this obstruction). Although I agree with points on both sides (I see the deficit is increasing, and it has been for many years), we need real politicians to act now, not hide the truth, not focus on destroying the other party's credibility with lies and false propaganda (FOX news is a great contributor to this problem---like calling reconciliation the nuclear option, when they are two different things)---this only misleads the American people (those that trust in the news for instance, regardless of the bias). Many people aren't smart enough to know that these biases exist, and are blindly trusting those news sources, as well getting reinforcement of that false propaganda by people around them.
Obama has many facts to back up what he says, and there have been no alternatives presented by the Republican party to attempt to fix the health care crisis/system and ensure the 30 million that are currently out of luck.

Peace and Love to you all (even if we disagree)
-Lagius

You're an ass.| 3.11.10 @ 1:13PM

You're an ass.

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 4:18PM

To whomever made the comment: "You're an ass" to Lagius: You are out of order.

Tell It Like It IS?| 3.12.10 @ 3:03PM

Ted, What happened to "tell it like it is".

Lagius is a prime example of an ASS.

Truth be told, sorry you cannot bear wittness. :'(

Ted| 3.14.10 @ 1:12PM

And I have no problem telling it like it is. However, there are simply much better ways to do it and make the point rather than degnerating into name calling. That is something the leftist Alinsky types in the Democratic Party do.

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 4:22PM

Lagius,

You confuse disagreement with the President's proposals with hatred for the man. And the President does have facts. Unfortunately many of those facts have been proven false and many of his arguments have been proven invalid.

John| 3.11.10 @ 4:30PM

Yes, Republican ideas that the president agrees with. However, what he does will be the opposite of what he says. You libs don't care how we get to socialist utopia as long as we get there.

JimE| 3.11.10 @ 5:49PM

Another liberal ACORN troll.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:32AM

ACORN is a farce. You give them away too much power because that's all you have-nothing.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:48AM

"We" meaning you and the voices in your head?

Obama's sides with the most conservative health care plans:Single Payer, which the HMO's were sure to never be on the table in the first place. So he proposed the next most conservative idea: The Public Option, but the HMO's who fund all of Congress didn't want that either. Instead he has proposed a concession bill that pleases the HMO's that Republicans fought tooth-n-nail to get. Forcing people to sign up, but also 2 concessions so HMO's cannot drop you, and so they cannot deny initial coverage.

You fought extremely hard along with Republicans to see that Health Care wasn't the issue, but rather protecting HMO's wasteful coverage. Why are you complaining now?

Eric Glassco| 3.11.10 @ 8:43AM

Clare,
I do not believe for a second that that is your actual opinion. Mentioning faith in Obama as a logical reason to accept massive transformative policy highlights you as nothing more than a liberal activist under orders to troll the internet spouting vapid talking points.

Alan Brooks| 3.11.10 @ 9:24AM

Top flight piece.
Our main 'opponents' (not a fashionable word anymore) will probably eventually be libertopians rather than naive liberals. Naive people overreach and damage their causes. Though libertarianism itself is naive, libertopians are not, they are tough customers; they might make chimps out of us, but we will never make chumps out of them.

DukeD| 3.11.10 @ 9:31AM

Clare.... We elected him because we thought he would help our country solve tough problems".... how's that working out for you?

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:27PM

last i checked the financial crisis is over .....do you live in a trailor without a tv ?
people like you remind me of an arsonist ....you set the country on fire and then complain about the size of the hose used to put out the fire.

Vernon Rosa| 3.11.10 @ 1:18PM

"last time i checked the financial crisis is over"...

When exactly was that, Scott? Unemployment is over 10%. I believe those people who are trying unsuccessfully to find work would your comments just more Obamanisms.

Dr Al| 3.11.10 @ 4:24PM

Vernon,

Your right about the unemployment situation except that the real number is about to top 20%. As far as the deaf, dumb and blind obot serial prevaricators posting here, Bush may have had issues but they pale in comparison to the usurper in chief. In the last year alone our national debt has increased five fold under the America hating Democratic communists. The number of blatantly unconstitutional passed and/or proffered pieces of legislation has been the greatest assault on the Constitution in American history. What everyone fails to mention is that we have an impostor in the White House who has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to hide his records, while McCain was forced to provide all of his to certify his eligibility to run. The single greatest crime in American history and treason on a massive level.

The de-facto moron in chief makes Clinton look like an honest man by comparison. Even his tele-prompter lies. One other thing, thought there is much more, the health(death)care bill. Nobody Congressman that voted for it actually read it, even commie Pelosi who just had the idiotic temerity to state that we can read it after we pass it, WHAT! Have any of you read the bill? It is a total demolition of our remaining freedoms thus the end of America as we know it. If you took the time to read it, you would arm yourself immediately. Did you know that Congress, when offered the same plan, turned it down because they know how dangerous it is? It's totally unconstitutional and TREASON! Try reading the Constitution sometime!

Be aware that there are serial liberal posters on this and other patriotic sites, many posing as conservatives. They are blatant liars and habitual kool aid drinkers!

scott| 3.11.10 @ 7:59PM

thats right a president who just walked into the oval office 1 year ago is fully resposible for 8 years of pillaging.....like i said you arsonists have no ground to stand on ......we have been in recessions before . usually recessions are started by republicans ...its a shame democrats always have to clean them up . if the dems only had spines republicans would be carpetbaggers.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:54AM

Reagan was handed relatively stable unemployment at 7.5% that remained at that level until October 1981. Unemployment under Reagan peaked in December 1982, 23 months after he took office, and didn't return to Carter era levels until June of 1984.

Obama was handed a far worse recession that many felt could be as bad as the great depression, yet his policies seem to be working better and faster than Reagan's wealth redistribution to the top did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....enIUvpSK0#

“We’ve had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president.

The economy has also strengthened beyond expectations at the time Obama took office. The gross domestic product grew at a 5.9 percent annual pace in the fourth quarter, compared with a median forecast of 2.0 percent...

One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it’s up more than 41 percent since Obama took office.

“You have to give them -- along with the Federal Reserve - - a lot of credit,” said Joseph Carson, director of economic research at AllianceBernstein LP in New York. “A year ago, there was panic...

Try reality for a change...

Tony C| 3.11.10 @ 10:41AM

Clare yours is the attitude so typical of liberals and quite frankly exactly what the progressives want us to have, that being, faith that they will take care of you. I challenge you to ask how YOU can best take care of YOU. The answer will not be by allowing a multitude of bureaucrats making decisions that affect your life. Your health is precious, but it pales in value when measured against liberty and self determination. I urge you to read F. A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, which is non-political but profound in its implications. Remember this from President Reagan: When government expands, liberty contracts. One more point. Your statement, "we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he tells us.....", the Jewish people in Socialist Germany were told they were going to take a shower. Get smart!

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:32PM

hows trickle down economics working for you ? the only thing that trickled down was on your leg and it wasnt rain.
labeling someone a liberal or a right wing nut like yourself doesnt do anyone any good .
if the GOP idealogy is so good then why did this country almost collapse financially under 8 years of republican control .....please dont bore me with the fact the dems had control for 2 years ...its a pathetic argument. the buck stops at the top ..president has veto power...senate was a full 8 years.....the country was a disaster after the GOP pillaged it.
2012................unemployment at 7 % dow at 13k ....you will be proven wrong again.
remember the last time this country had a balanced budget was under clinton .....the same old babbling of it doesnt work happened then too.

Stephen Acree| 3.11.10 @ 1:30PM

If you look at the national debt, you will see it increased every year Bill Clinton was in office.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:13PM

Bill Clinton left office running well over $200 billion surplus.
Bush turned a $200 billion surplus to a $1 trillion deficit.
Facts are stubborn things, and have a known liberal bias.
Bush's deficit was more than all of the previous presidents combined.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 4:25PM

DanMingo,

Bubba the pervert had nothing to do with the surpluses, he was dragged kicking and screaming to go along with the budget caps.

Plus, he was too busy finding new ways to "smoke" cigars, remember? Why are you a pervert lover?

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 7:10PM

he was too busy finding new ways to "smoke" cigars, remember? Why are you a pervert lover?
I don't know what you've been smoking, but if 'Bubba' was dragged kicking and screaming by, presumably, republicans, how come all we get from republicans are deficits.
Name a republican that left office with a surplus.
You can't.
Clinton did it, no republican did. So, who gave us those surpluses if not Clinton?
I do/did not like Clinton. But facts are facts. He was more fiscally responsible than any republican president of the modern era. Irrefutably.
And he was an adulterer. A sin, but a common one, especially among politicians of BOTH PARTIES.
John Ensign resigned yet?
Oh yeah, only Democrat perverts have to pay.
Sanford? Still Governor?

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 7:51PM

DanMingo,

Don't play the tit-for-tat game, you will lose.
The democrat party is full of perverts. Barney Frank, "The Swimmer" Kennedy, Spitzer, et al.

"Name a republican that left office with a surplus."

President Nixon, 1969. The Republican House and Senate of the late 90's, led by Speakers Gingrich and Hastert and Senator Lott. Is that enough for ya'?

Bubba the pervert wanted to spend us into oblivion, just like President Dither does.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 8:21PM

foley ...vitter ...hastert ....cantor ...bachmann....dick morris....ensign ....sanford....etc , etc.
let us also not forget bushs' spiritual leader haggert .who also smoked things which were not deemed cigars.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 8:59PM

Scott,

Morris worked for Bubba the pervert, remember?

- Neil Goldschmidt (democrat, OR)
- Jerry Springer (democrat, OH)
- Melvin Jay Reynolds (democrat, IL)
- James McGreevey (democrat, NJ)
- Gerry Studds (democrat, MA)
- Marion Barry (democrat, DC)
- Commie/Kwame Kilpatrik (democrat, MI)
- Chuck Robb (democrat, VA)

Need I go on?

Are you the "Scott" I argued with last week who is mooching off the taxpayers by taking unemployment welfare?

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 9:08PM

Forgot to mention that putting Mr. Hastert, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Bachmann on your list is at best a mistake, at worst it is libel.

There is no sexual scandal in any of their backgrounds.

And I forgot-
Eric Massa (democrat, NY)

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 1:57PM

Nick, you are clearly one confused dude, and apparently the facts confuse you even more.
I was referring to Presidents and the level of debt/surplus they leave. Therefore, the credit you seek to give to congress for the surplus at the end of Clinton's term belongs to President Clinton.
So, just to be clear, Republicans increase the deficit (debt) and Democrats decrease it. To put it more simply Republicans spend more than they take in, Democrats (we're talking presidents now)
take in more than they spend.
These are simple numbers accessible to anyone who cares to know the facts. Check this reference, which took .018 seconds to find on google:
Since the end of the Second World War, every Democratic president has left the national debt smaller relative to GDP than his predecessor. And since Richard Nixon’s second term (completed by Gerald Ford) every Republican has done the opposite, raising the national debt relative to income. There may be no political cliché more blatantly false than the idea that Republicans are fiscally conservative. "
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=677
That's how you do it Nick. You state your opinion and back it up with facts, not talk out of your ass and call people names who disagree with you.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 6:10PM

DanMingo,

You must not understand our system too well.

Here, in America, presidents don't spend, congress does.

Try reading the U.S. Constitution.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 6:17PM

Oh, by the way, don't cite a "progressive" source like The Century Foundation to prove your "progressive" point of view. Not very credible.

They have John Podesta (the little nazi) as one of their trustees, for pete's sake!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:56AM

Republicans spent an average of $30 billion a year more than what CLinton asked for. Why are you a bald faced liar? What good does it do you?

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 7:13AM

Jon B,

Why are you still posting here, Mr. "Reagan gave the Soviets $425 billion"?

Quit making stuff up and pulling garbage out of your backside.

Facts not Fiction Please| 3.12.10 @ 5:00PM

Most of the prosperity that came from the 'Clinton Years' was with a Rep. controlled Congress.

In contrast, most of the Bush years were run with a Dem. Congress. Now re -read the figures above with understanding of how they came to be, not simply offering half truths to support your ( ignorant or willful lie) claims.

Slammin Sammy Snead| 3.12.10 @ 8:36PM

Not True!
Bush had a Republican congress 6 of his 8 years.
Bill Frist. Senate Majority Leader
Tom Delay and Denny Hastert ran the House, and no Democratic sponsored bills saw the light of day in the House.
Re-read your recent US history.
Or believe what you want to believe.
And congress appropriates funds, but the President submits a yearly budget and has veto power over the budget. George Bush did not veto a single bill until the Democrats took over in 2007.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 11:57PM

Bzzzzzzzzzzz!
Wrong, Mr. Snead!

In May of 2001, senator Jumpin' Jim Jeffords turned the 50/50 senate over to the democrat party by becoming an independent.

The GOP only controlled both houses of congress from Jan., 2003 to Jan., 2007. Plus the 4+ months in 2001, but the senate was 50/50, so they didn't really control it. That's 4 years, not 6 years.

L Blanchard| 3.11.10 @ 2:38PM

Scott, You need to educate yourself on this. The financial crisis is the implosion of a bubble in real property values. The mark to market rule then left institutions suddenly bankrupt. The bubble was created because congress mandated relaxed lending rules. Banks refused to comply. Congress then mandated massive fines. Banks turned to congress and said: If you want us to do this, we need the ability to sell the loans on the secondary market. So congress obliged, and ordered Freddie and Fannie to buy that paper. Catastrophe followed. So yes, changing regulation was the cause. But who were its champions? Who forced these changes and fought to keep them in place? Democrats. You can watch it for yourself on Cspan. Congressional video of your heroes refusing to change this course... because of their victim mentality. I hate to break it to you, but Fox is right as they often are: See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBut1bdg3TE

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:23PM

"but Fox is right as they often are."
That will lose you credibility points in a hurry.
During the Clinton years bank regulations were changed, Glass-Steagall (a law to keep banks from speculating) was repealed, and banks were able to operate as investment firms rather than strictly as financial institutions. A Republican from Texas, Gramm, pushed through the legislation.
The banks could gamble with their depositors money, and when the gamble failed, they had the taxpayers bail them out.
They get free money, gamble it away, then ask us for more.
You can blame fanny/Freddy if that makes you feel all righteous (they certainly contributed), but the large investment firms manipulated the markets, gambled with depositor money, and crashed the world economy.
Democrats under Clinton were involved but it was Republican legislation under Clinton that pushed through the deregulation that brought on the economic collapse.
They all are at fault; not just Barney Frank and the Dems.

chuck| 3.11.10 @ 4:50PM

Sorry, DanMingo, but the housing bubble caused the financial collapse. Facts are facts. Maybe not in your fantasy world, but for those of us in the real world, the fact is that the feds forced and actively encouraged banks to make bad loans, on the assumption that housing values would always go up. Then Fannie and Freddie, and yes even the investment banks bought this crappy paper up. Once the bubble burst, it was all worthless. The chief architects of this disaster? Christopher Dodd, Barney Fwank, Jimma Cahter, and Bill Clinton.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 7:19PM

that the feds forced and actively encouraged banks to make bad loans
Then the banks entrusted with our money, took those loans, bundled them, and sold them as if they were the most secure investments available, when they were nothing but paper. These got sold and resold, and financial institutions insured those worthless securities with AIG, and each transaction made money for the speculator/seller.
I do not see the names of any republicans, so clearly this is a partisan issue for you, but I assure you a$$holes from both parties are at fault.
The real culprits are the people at Goldman-Sachs AIG Leahman Bros. Merril Lynch
etc.
And if you want to blame Democrats, blame Clinton who signed into law the bill which de-regulated the banks so they could perpetrate these frauds.
The bill was from Republican Senator Gramm from Tx. the guy who, during the early McCain campaign, called people complaining that the economy wqas bad a "bunch of whiners"
ironically because it was the policies he pushed that led to the disaster.
I should have thought of a cute funny or demeaning way to spell his name to show my cleverness.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 8:17PM

total housing market in the usa is 1 trillion dollars .......if every mtg went bad we would right a check for 1 trillion and we are clean .
so why did we spend 2 trillion and still a housing crisis ?
LEVERAGE ......banks took too much risk with too little money . blaming this on poor people is ridiculous.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:01AM

The housing bubble? Paying off all the failed CRA and subprime loans would've cost $57 Billion. We've given the banks $16 trillion. The banks caused this crisis, not poor home buyers who have no TV news network to point out this simple fact and discrepancy in the FOX news lie many neocons promote. Clearly you believe in a bald faced lie, but I winder why you do?

JimE| 3.11.10 @ 5:51PM

Obama's useful idiots are out in full force.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 8:06PM

i hate to break it to you but your dillusional like fox news .....believe me when i tell you first hand ....its tough to explain derivatives ...not enough time . in one word the financial crisis was caused by one word . LEVERAGE.
actually OVER-LEVERAGE.
there is no boogie man .

L blanchard| 3.11.10 @ 2:51PM

I should also answer your first question: How is trickle down economics working for me? The answer: Fantastic. For all of us. Open your eyes. The S&P 500 has grown 12 fold since Reagan took office. These are publicly held assets. They don't belong to the few. They're the primary asset in the 401k of every American. They're the Respository of pension funds, and giant retirement funds like Calpers. What planet are you on? And by the way, Clinton benefited because he signed republican bills. He may be a huckster, but he wasn't an idiot activist like Barry.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 8:13PM

lol....wow . what logic . lets see now .
when reagan held office there was a democratic majority , but REAGAN gets full credit for everything because he was president .
when clinton was president with a republican majority it was CONGRESS that gets credit because they forced him .
the s&p 500 credit goes to reagan of all people ....even while he is buried .....while obama gets blamed for the financial crisis while bush ran the goverment . as for the recent market upturn .....87 % positie since march......that credit goes to reagan as well ....again while dead and buried .
follow that pattern and if you cant see whats wrong check yourself in to the nearest rubber room.

Jon B | 3.12.10 @ 7:03AM

So that explains the quadrupled National Debt after 12 years of Reaganomics, and the 1991 recession which brought in a restructuring of Reagan's policies to get America back on it's feet again.

taddeo| 3.11.10 @ 10:44AM

Clare doesn't really mean this,
she's pulling your leg to get some reactions and she did

John V| 3.11.10 @ 10:45AM

Why we voted for him????? I didnt, how is he working for everyone that did....it sont matter, there are people who will still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, no matter how much more harm he does....these kinds need to wake up and next time vote for a president who will actually stand up for America...if we dont have one....LIKE USUAL...its time to send millions toWashington to put one in charge....Claire???? I guess you will believe like all the others that voted for this moron....."CHANGE IS COMING" how long you gonna beleive that??? I have some land I'd like to sell ya....

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:06AM

I agree: Obama isn't fixing BU$H's catastrophic mess fast enough for me either. You see, I'm spoiled. I could care less that Reagan took 4 years to fix a milder recession. I want pleasure right now! And I do not want anyone to take responsibility for Bush's actions. Clearly it's Obama's fault that Bush screwed the country by giving corporations too much power, which we're witnessing with the way Congress acts now in regards to protecting Health Insurers instead of the people.

John Lloyd Scharf| 3.11.10 @ 10:45AM

Congress gave him the benefit of the doubt Obama claimed the "Stimulus Act" would keep the use from going over 8% unemployed. We know what YOU elected him for. YOU need to wake up like millions of citizens. Unfortunately, you cannot have a vote to recall a president.

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:37PM

so let me get this straight ....when unemployment was at 8% under bush that was ok with you ....its the 2 % ( actually 1.5 ) under this president that makes you mad .
look in the mirror and repeat that statement ......yes thats a horses rear you see.
the babbling and comlaining about this president is endless ....is there anyone with an education left in this country .
stop watching beck ......hes a alchy.....start listening and reading before you comment.

Glen K.| 3.11.10 @ 10:51AM

We??! WE elected him? Well, maybe a bare majority of Americans were suckered by his vague promises of what they thought were "Hope and Change" (we misunderstood -- he was saying "Hype and Chains") but now even a majority of people who voted for him have decided that they made a mistake. The moderalt-liberal McCain may just have been better??

Scott C.| 3.11.10 @ 11:00AM

Seriously? We should just go along because a politician says it's good? Are you seriously saying that his policies must be good because he won the election? May not be thinking that way, but that's the logic of your statement. His policies are bad. They will increase the costs of medical care while simultaneously reducing overall access. It's not about having or not having "faith" in a politician, even one with a messiah complex. It's about actually becoming informed about the issue and making an intelligent assessment. Do that, and you'll oppose this too.

I'm curious if you have the same opinion about any of George Bush's policies? Did you support Social Security reform or did you follow you Democrat prophets (like Obama) who told you to put your head in the sand and pretend that the system isn't heading inexorably into insolvency and collapse without fundamental reform?

SCOTT| 3.11.10 @ 12:42PM

when you lose elections its suppose to taste like crap. the election is over ....new ideas ...new idealogy .....your not suppose to like it .

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 1:46PM

Are you the same Scott that I had a conversation with last week, who is mooching off the taxpayers with unemployment welfare?

L Blanchard| 3.11.10 @ 3:03PM

You're just too easy. The manufactured candidate Barry is the dream of the left and the ghetto. Some independents just wanted a change, and many on the right don't care for McCain.
The real referendum here is the cold war. Who won that contest, grasshopper? Why don't you take a trip to Ukraine and get an eyeful of the world you THINK you want? The majority of the country looks like Harlem. A bit of advice: Don't get sick while you're there. They have socialist healthcare.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:11AM

Reform in the Soviet Union came about because of progressive legislators in Russia's Congress, and because of Gorbachev whose lifelong dream it was to change the system. Reagan was a vociferous cheerleader, but he did very little to bring this change about. Reagan's biggest contribution was giving the Soviet Union $425 Billion in 2 years so they started Perestroika "a year or two earlier than we were going to anyway." A significant contribution no doubt, but giving Reagan credit for the fall of the USSR when they were already fallen economically by 1981 is like giving the New Orleans cheerleaders credit for winning the Super Bowl.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 7:20AM

Jon B,

President Reagan's proposed budget for 1987 was $994 billion, and congress spent $1.004 trillion. You are falsely claiming that 1/4 of it went to the Soviet Union.

The budget for 1988 was $1.02 trillion, and congress spent $1.06 trillion. You falsely claim that $175 billion of that went to the Soviet Union.

Why must you repeatedly insist on making a fool of yourself?

Nick| 3.13.10 @ 12:01AM

Jon B has admitted he lied, er...um...."was mistaken" about this bogus claim.

He now claims it was $425 million. He's still wrong/lying.

darrel.howell| 3.11.10 @ 3:07PM

Well, then get ready for it Scott, because you are about to have a very, very bad taste in your mouth come November.
The mask is off these Hopey Changey Progressives. The citizenry has realized, by observing Obama, Pelosi and Reid for a few months, that the progressives represent exactly the same ideology that we fought in the cold war.
We have woken up to the fact that we are still fighting the cold war, but the enemy is on our own shores.
You point to a single Statist government that ever worked. Collectivism is counter to human nature and simply does not work. And don't point to China. Even though Mao murdered 70 million people to impose his will, capitalism is now making great inroads and will eventually get the boot off the necks of the Chinese people. Striving to improve your own lot in life is human nature. Darwinism, if you like.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:32PM

http://i140.photobucket.com/al.....iation.gif

The link above goes to a graph of how the Obamacare plan will add to the deficit vs. the bush tax cuts.
Maybe something factual to go with your "head out of the sand" approach.
That collapse without reform applies to the health care arena as well, but you are opposed to health care reform and support only SS reform?

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 5:02PM

Is that you, 3/5 Bob?

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 5:13PM

Mr. Mingo,

Thank you for your attempts to add some meat to your arguments. Unfortunately, numbers can be manipulated to show just about anything you want them to and Obama's been known to make stuff up out of whole cloth. I also have no reason to trust the site you pulled these from since it isn't clear who that is.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 7:27PM

I believe the site is called one citizen out of W. Va. That's where I found the graph; it had an explanation about the sources if you really care to know more. I thought the numbers were from the CBO, which is non-partisan, but I am not sure.
I do know that according to the CBO the obama plan as passed by the senate is supposed to SAVE about 100 billion over ten years.
Just to be clear, I do not support the plan. I am looking for the truth and lean left, but I'm not blind and do not have to resort to name calling or derision to make a point.
Some do, largely because that's what makes them feel good. I'd rather get the insight from a divergent point of view and discuss, but the partisanship here and on other sites gets to me sometimes. It's not as if republicans are the good guys and democrats are the bad guys. They are pretty much all egocentric power hungry and morally deficient (politicians) so which party they identify with does not mean as much as what they say which matters less than what they actually do.

Sam W.| 3.11.10 @ 11:06AM

Ms. Shanahan, can you honestly say you would feel the same way if I made the same sort of statement, only regarding Ronald Reagan when he was president? Or would you not rail about how we are not supposed to blindly submit and "trust" without knowing what's in legislation or questioning motives, etc. What I'm saying is that yours is just another partisan rant, but worse, because, like Obama, it is disguised.

Garyt| 3.11.10 @ 11:15AM

How about faith in the American people to choose the health care that works for them. We need to empower the individual citizen. Honestly, I don't need a Democrat, Republican, or independent "Fearless Leader" to tell me how to run my life. I do just fine on my own!

NJK| 3.11.10 @ 11:19AM

"We elected him because we thought he would help our country solve tough problems, and now we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he tells us his health bill is what we need to improve health care. "
Clare,
You and millions of others elected him, millions of us didn't. Again, this is Obama saying one thing, let's see what he actually does. He has proven unreliable with facts.
I will not give him or anyone else the benefit of the doubt about this health care seizure. The government has no Constitutional authority to involve itself in anyones private health care. I want them to get out of my life, my children's lives, and do what the Constitutional allows, nothing more. The only thing this government should do is make it easier to purchase health care accross state lines, and perhaps tax breaks.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:36PM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's in the promote the general welfare part.

chuck| 3.11.10 @ 5:00PM

Dan, you really are a brainless ass. Thats just the preamble. The good parts are in the Articles, and the Amendment. The actual structural, powers and limits are enumerated, and any power not specifically enumerated is reserved for the people, or the states. Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers specifically spells out the the general welfare clause( in the Articles section) does not allow the government to do whatever they want. It may use the enumerated powers to promote the general welfare. AND ONLY THE ENUMERATED POWERS!!!!!!

You, Sir, are a glittering jewel of idiocy.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:54PM

you really are a brainless ass. Thats just the preamble. The good parts are in the Articles, and the Amendment."
Yes, the preamble is useless and should have been left out. It merely states the whole purpose for the existence of the constitution, which is protecting and defending the well-being of the citizenry. I guess health is not a part of the general welfare. Okay.

Since we already have socialized medicine for some, it is useless to argue over whether it's constitutional or not, because clearly, it is.
The question is, should that program be expanded to cover everyone, like every other industrialized country in the world currently does?
You say no, we can't afford it, even though we are the richest nation in the world, and EVERY industrialized nation in the world somehow can afford it.
The government cannot do whatever it wants, but it certainly could promote the general welfare by giving everyone access to quality healthcare.
Like
EVERY other industrialized nation, 36 of which nations get BETTER care than we do, although we pay the most.
It doesn't seem fair does it.
And when someone like you calls me names and uses similar tactics, that tells me I have owned you, because your weak arguments are not good enough, you have to degrade the person for having a different opinion.
I own you.
Each insult is a badge of honor, so vent away and show the other readers how shallow you are. Certaionly there will be many here who will agree with you.
Fine
I own you. And them too.

chuck| 3.11.10 @ 7:18PM

Just because they're already doing it makes it constitutional? Wow, your stupidity is breathtaking. Typical response from the trolls. I presented facts why you were wrong, including historical references from the founding, written to explain the constitution so the people could understand what was proposed.(A far cry from Ms. Pelosi and her" we was pass it so we can find out what's in it") And instead of refuting the salient parts, it's "I own you, I own you"

I stand by my original comment, you are a brainless ass.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 7:33PM

I stand by my original comment, you are a brainless ass.
Well, you did not disappoint.
You proved my point by repeating the insults.

Just because they're already doing it makes it constitutional?
Please indicate the Supreme Court case which declared medicare unconstitutional.
If you cannot, then the program is legal, and you are wrong, and my suggestion is to extend that program to cover all Americans, as every other industrialized country in the world does.
And we rank 37th overall in quality of healthcare, but when it comes to cost
We're #1
We're #1
We're #1

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 8:14PM

We're ranked 37th in the world by commie pinkos at the UN and WHO.

So what?

Jon B | 3.12.10 @ 7:16AM

Health Care is too much of a Christinn value for most Republicans these days. The Bible is filled with references telling and even commanding his followers to help the poor. Jesus provided free health care to anyone who asked. But somehow Republicans are more interested in protecting the profits of the HMO's. Maybe the Bible was right, M0ney is the root of all evil.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 7:24AM

Jon B,

You have probably never read the Bible.

Where does that verse come from?

You misquoted it anyway, you gave the marxist version. It actually says, "Love of money is the root of all evil."

John DeLasaux| 3.11.10 @ 11:32AM

As Presidet said of the Russians, "Trust, but verify." When you are dealing with a person who has already told so many lies and broken so many promises, why would you blindly trust him on the next promise?

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:19AM

Yet Reagan helped dictators murder over 1/2 million civilians in Central America although there was no Soviet insurgency down there-NONE. The US Military verified this in 1981 before the escalation occurred.

Reagan also armed Saddam and the Ayatollah at the same time. Some would say that he trusted the wrong people there too.

Both were huge mistakes, a verifiable fact.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 7:47AM

Jon B,

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you upside the head. Which I wish your nurse would do to you.

Take your lithium, stat. This fantasy land you live in will destroy you.

Ollie South| 3.12.10 @ 10:21AM

You seem to be afraid of the facts.
The Iran Contra affair involved cocaine smuggling, trading arms with terrorists (that's the Iran part of Iran Contra), lying to Congress and multiple felonies by members of Reagan's administration, most of whom were later pardoned by Bush I; some were pardoned pretrial.
These facts are stubborn things and the whole affair including support for death squads in S. America, is much worse than the little bit I mention here.
I am pretty sure the people who get there information from a certain 'news' channel will jump in to say this is BS liberal propaganda. Porbably they will call me names.
None of that will change the facts, which can be easily verified by any objective source, and will be denied by most here who definitely can not handle the truth.
Hint: just read about Colnel Ollie North; his testimony, the testimony of his secretary Fawn Hall. Ollie got immunity to testify to his crimes.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 10:44AM

You are right!

You're a commie stooge. Or, more appropriately, a Useful Idiot.

It must burn you up that Mr. North is on Fox News, making more money in a year than you'll see in a lifetime, huh?

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 1:34PM

Ollie has his own show?
An admitted felon is your hero?
A guy that helped bring about the crack epidemic is someone you admire?
Yes, he's a great american, and I, who have never sold weapons to terrorists nor facilitated the drug market's access to US markets using CIA assets (all proven true) I am a commie stooge.
Nick, you are long on insults and woefully short on facts and everyone can see that.
Not one fact to refute what I have written; just insults and name calling. That's what you do when outmatched by someone who has a better command of the facts. In fact it's the conservative republican playbook. Demean the messenger.
You can't dispute the facts so name calling is all you got left.
I got no more time for you and your ilk. Try replying to your base, they will agree with you.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 6:28PM

DanMingo,

Are you admitting you are "Ollie South"? Are you admitting you post under different names? Why? Are you that insecure? Shame.

You do not give facts. You make assertions with no sources or quotes to back them up.

By the way, Oliver North was never convicted of anything. To label him a "felon", is libelous. He could sue your commie lovin' butt.

I had no idea you belong in the same category as Maxine Waters, until your "crack epidemic" comment. You are a bleeding heart, commie pinko, left-wing kook.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 8:41PM

Again, ignorant of the facts.
Ollie North was an admitted felon, not a convicted felon. He was granted immunity for his testimony before congress.
I watched it on T.V. while you were still in diapers.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 11:45PM

Bzzzzzzz!

Wrong again, DanMingo!

I was 19, working on hot mall roofs that summer. Unfortunately, I got my news from 3 nightly news shows. But, I was more informed than most 19 year olds of that time.

You must have forgotten that the scumbag Lawrence Walsh indicted and convicted Col. North and John Poindexter. The convictions were overturned by a higher court, though.

So, Mr. North was never a "felon", admitted or convicted.

Col. North may have went up to the line, maybe he even crossed it, but, he was doing it to fight commies, like yourself. So, it was okay in my book.

In fact, it was heroic and he deserves a medal for what he did.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 11:46PM

p.s., Don't get your histrory from wiki. Or Pravda.

DanMingo| 3.13.10 @ 11:24AM

So you watched the network news; the entire trial was on tv and I watched every day (worked nights). No wonder you are so ill-informed.
The hearings finished in 1988 when North was indicted for crimes concerning his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. He was eventually found guilty on three counts, but in 1990 all of his convictions were overturned on the basis of the limited immunity granted by the congressional hearing.3
http://www.hyperhistory.net/ap.....oliver.htm
On April 6, 1989, North took the stand in his own defense. For six days, North admitted to having assisted the contras during the Boland prohibition on U.S. aid, to having shredded and removed from the White House official documents, to having converted traveler's checks for his personal use, to having participated in the creation of false chronologies of the U.S. arms sales, to having lied to Congress and to having accepted a home security-system from Secord and then fabricating letters regarding payment for the system. But, North testified, ``I don't believe I ever did anything that was criminal.'' 27
On November 21, 22 or 24, 1986, North said he witnessed Poindexter destroy what may have been the only signed copy of a presidential covert-action Finding that sought to authorize retroactively CIA participation in the November 1985 HAWK missile shipment to Iran. North said the Finding was destroyed because its language made clear that it was a swap of arms-for-hostages, and because public revelation of the fact that the United States had been involved in the ill-fated shipment would jeopardize the lives of Americans still being held hostage in the Middle East.35 Asked whether he felt he was part of a ``den of thieves,'' North answered he felt he was among honorable men. He said:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm
So, he admitted he committed the crimes, he just believed he was acting 'honorably'.His convictions were overturned on the technicality that he was granted immunity by congress for his testimony. He was guilty of high crimes and admitted as much. He knew about trading arms for hostages with a terrorist state (Iran), he knew about the drug smuggling and he knew about (and participated in) the illegal arms sales, bribery, and destruction of government documents which would have shown the knowledge and involvement of President Reagan. In fact North implicated Reagan in his testimony (there's loyalty for you) as an excuse for his actions, contending he was operating at the behest of the President.
Your hero, and the President he served, violated laws that would have put them both in prison if we had a real system of justice.
The whole affair was swept under the rug, the perpetrators were pardoned (some, like
Weinberger, before they had a trial), and many of them later ended up in the Bush II administration.

North, your hero, should still be in prison, along with all of his co-conspirators.
P.S. Gary Webb's expose of the cocaine/crack dealing by the CIA has all the embarrassing details and is, I believe available on line.
Yes, Walsh is/was a scumbag for trying to enforce the law.
I guess you would say the same of Judge
Starr who spent $50 million to investigate Clinton's hummer.
Clinton got impeached, North got a gig on Fox news.
Yes, we are truly all equal under the law.

Nick| 3.13.10 @ 3:27PM

Boy, that's a lot of words, DanMingo, just to prove I was right.

"But, North testified, 'I don't believe I ever did anything that was criminal.''' - DanMingo

"So, Mr. North was never a 'felon', admitted or convicted." - Nick

Thanks for proving my point, brainiac.

You are correct about one thing, though. Yes, President Reagan, Col. North, and Adm. Poindexter got away with it! Ha-ha!

Bubba the pervert got IMPEACHED for lying about diddling the portly intern. (He was guilty of many crimes too, along with Shrillary the Hut.)

And nothing will ever change that!

President Reagan has an airport, aircraft carrier, and numerous other things named after him. He will probably end up on the fifty dollar bill, and maybe even Mt. Rushmore. The first line of his obituary reads, "He brought down the evil Soviet empire, along with Pope John Paul II and Margret Thatcher."

Bubba the pervert will always be known for being a degenerate. The first line in his obituary will read: "Former impeached president ..." He will still be the punchline of jokes 50 years from now!

That must drive you and your commie buddies crazy, huh?

Col. North didn't even come close to violating the Boland Amendment, by the way. That was more prosecutorial misconduct by the wacko Walsh.

Ken Starr caused the independent council law not to be renewed. Ha-ha!

This helped President Bush greatly. He didn't have to worry about you stinking libs investigating him for 8 years!

Ol' Yankee| 3.11.10 @ 11:41AM

Clare - I have a hard time having faith in anyone who gives an ultimatum to pass a bill within "so many days" without giving the American public a chance to read it. It wasn't long ago that Obama passed the TARP bill without the legislators reading it. I have faith in God; when it comes to politicians I think the wiser thing is to "trust yet verify".

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:43PM

It wasn't long ago that Obama passed the TARP bill without the legislators reading it.

Speaking of not reading, yankee, maybe you should read up on that TARP bill Obama did not let us read.
Do you know why Obama did not let us read it?
Because "The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage TARP under a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts."
The TARP program was passed one month before Obama was elected.
So it was your president bush who would not let you read the TARP bill.
Funny thing though; they (legislators) did apparently read it because, as quoted earlier in my offering, passed the bill.
You guys are quick to condemn Obama, and slow to learn the facts.

stunned| 3.11.10 @ 12:07PM

Clare, did you know that a tree is known by it's fruit? This fellow ensconced in the oval office has shown over and over his hatred for America through his posturing to enemies of this country and his plethora of radical antiamerican czars. Wake up please and smell the foulness emitted from DC.

Funky monkey| 3.11.10 @ 4:45PM

Great point, you can know a tree by its' fruit.
So, what kind of tree was GW Bush, because the fruit was avoidable dishonest war, torture, economic collapse, treason, and of course, many many lies.
Sounds like poison oak.

Cliff L| 3.11.10 @ 12:09PM

FAITH -- Wow - you need more than faith to believe that someone that has spent his entire life associating with far left wing individuals can help our Free Market country. (Well it used to be Free)

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:22AM

I really never thought that Saudi Oil Sheiks and the Bin Ladens were "left wing." But it's true that Bush associated himself with the people who funded the 9/11 attacks most of his life, and even protected them several times during his pResidency.

Prince Salim| 3.12.10 @ 8:44PM

A Saudi Sheik is a major owner of the parent corporation of Fox news (News Corp)
It may only be a rumor, but he is said to have bragged about influencing the 'news'.
I cannot confirm this rumor, but haven't really looked that hard.

Maria| 3.11.10 @ 12:23PM

Clare, only a little more than half elected him, which means almost half did not. Obama's plan will affect all 305,000,000 Americans today as well as future generations and the only time it has ever been done before was with Medicare and Medicaid. Do you think Medicare/Medicaid programs are so successful that it is worth repeating and expanding, or should we first fix what's broke before dumping all the rest of us into it? p.s. you do know both programs are running in the negative, yes?

danfromatlanta| 3.11.10 @ 12:26PM

Are you kidding? This guy has broken every campaign promise he made, and you wonder why we don't trust him? Get your head out of the sand, or whatever other dark, smelly orafice you might have it stuck in, and quit blindly trusting whatever this crook tells you!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:23AM

Bush is gone, Dan. For GOD's sakes, GET OVER IT!!!

Jonathan| 3.11.10 @ 1:03PM

It is stupid to have faith in any elected official. We should be doing our own homework, finding out the facts and use those facts to determine whether or not they are actually doing their job and hold them accountable. The "healthcare" bill is not a healthcare bill at all. It is a health insurance bill. As a person that acts as the go between between physicians and health insurance companies I can tell you with 100% certainty that not only is health insurance not healthcare, but it has contributed to a large portion of the problems in healthcare. Government intervention (mainly via Medicare and Medicaid) have caused most of the problems. Aside from that the federal goverment has no Constitutional authority to get involved in healthcare or health insurance. As a matter of fact the 10th amendment prohibits their involvement in it.

As for the program this particular article is talking about, it has only caused more problems. Medicare has been using private contractors and providing them financial incentives for years. The program has recovered a lot of overpayments from hospitals and nursing homes, but when it comes to physicians Medicare has spent more than they have collected. The private contractors are also abusing the system. They are taking back money that was paid correctly in order to get those "financial incentives". In addition to recouping overpayments, they are also supposed to be looking for underpayments and paying those. Even though most Drs. underbill, because they are so afraid of an audit I have yet to hear of a practice who was actually paid additional money as a result of these audits.

QUIT FOLLOWING ELECTED OFFICIALS BLINDLY. Do not have faith in them and do not give them the benefit of the doubt. The reason we are in such a mess is because of this type of apathy. If we want anything to change we must inform ourselves and hold these people's feet to the fire.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:26AM

and yet you ignored the #1 contributing factor to why Government has become the representative of HMO's: Corporate $'s buying policy. The HMO's spent $1 billion in the last 2 years alone working on this Bill, or working it over to their liking. I find it ironic that Republican posturing now forces the GOP to pretend they're against the actual bill they fought for when they're really only against Obama.

Jonathan| 3.11.10 @ 1:04PM

Also if the bill is such a great improvement then why does it specifically excluded the President and Congress? If they really thoought it was good why would they not want it for themselves?

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:27AM

Are you really saying that Free Government Health Care (What Congress has) is better than this?

MTcasings| 3.11.10 @ 2:09PM

Obamaite suffering from the Dunning–Kruger Effect; a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"

Sigmoid Freud| 3.11.10 @ 4:49PM

Brilliant.
Describes nearly every conservative or liberal posting here, and I would paraphrase it as
Voting against your own best interests.
Like poor but dumb people saying we need more tax cuts for the rich, because tax cuts always work to fix a broken economy, right?

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:42PM

You keep repeating the same comment. WE either get it or we don't. repetition is not debate. It's boring.

L Blanchard| 3.11.10 @ 2:18PM

Clare, the answer to your question is to investigate exactly what is happening here. When you do, you'll find this bill has many serious problems. The stated problem was the rising cost of care. Yet the bill's real intent is to create another giant entitlement. The funding plan for this bill is disingenuous in multiple ways. It collects tax for several years before providing benefits in the first decade. This is done to deceive all about its true cost. It double counts funds in use for other programs. It claims dubious savings from Medicare when the fed has proven itself woefully unable to find those savings until now. Then a separate bill was to be used to return hundreds of billions to that program. What do you suggest we should trust? How do you find trust in someone who is openly lying to you?

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 2:27PM

Dear Clare,

There's giving someone the benefit of the doubt and then there's blind obedience and acquiescence. You, if haven't already had an epiphany, are practicing the later, not the former. When giving the benefit of the doubt, one still needs to use a skill called "critical thinking" which, unfortunately, our schools and society in general no longer teach or value. If you had this skill and were willing to use it, you would have long ago come the conclusion that Mr. Obama is way out of his league not only on this issue, but on all issues relating to running the most powerful country in the world. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the best isn't going to do you or our country any good. Quite the contrary, it will give Mr. Obama and his neo-socialist cadre the time they need to tear down and rebuild America in Cuba's image.

Gary| 3.11.10 @ 2:41PM

Faith is something given for the future when there are reliable past events to base them on. "I have faith that it won't snow in June because traditionally it doesn't.
People had false faith and lots of hope when President Obama first took office. If they looked at his past record, it should have been more hope than faith. But after almost 15 months of Obama's own actions the faith that he will "help our country" is misplaced. The electorate should never abdicate their responsibility to watch over our elected leaders. Have you ever read any of these bills? I have. Thousands and thousands of painful pages. These bills do not solve the issues we face. They hardly even address them. The Stimulus bill was not intended to stimulate the economy. It was used to provide pork barrel funds and paybacks to campaign contributors. The TARP bill did not infuse funds into toxic assets. The HealthCare bill does not reform our current healthcare system.
People have lost faith in our Congress and our President because they lie. I know they lie because I have carefully read these bills and some of their statements are flat out lies. They fail to perform their elected responsibilities when they bind us to law that they don't understand because they have not read or understood the bills.
It's is past time to wake up. This is not the land of "Hope and Faith". It is a paiful reality of a fast-track of Tyranny.

Yaakov Watkins| 3.11.10 @ 4:57PM

I didn't vote for Obama. I foresaw exactly the problems he is having now. I thought he would be a short term charmer and a long term disaster and my predictions are coming true. I think 2010 will be worse than 2009 in terms of Democrats being productive. I also question how honest he is being about his goals.

That being said, I sincerely and passionately hope I am completely wrong. I feel that the American people have given him the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, he wants to rule the country rather than lead the country. And what he wants to do won't work.

Maria| 3.11.10 @ 8:38PM

"We" did not elect socialist wolf in a sheepskin, you just fell for his "change" lies....tell me, what has changed for the better??? Maybe next time you will think before you vote.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:30AM

Well thank GOD! that the socialist is now out of power: The man who effectively redistributed trillions to corporations in 8 short years by stealing from working and tax paying Americans.

Perhaps we can restore some equity in these next 7 years and return America to the people somewhat.

Elaine Suhre| 3.12.10 @ 12:41AM

Apparently you haven't bothered to investigate the present POTUS and his shenanigans with his cohorts. Check him out thoroughly and if you have any sense, you won't call him President either.

We are quickly reaching a point of no return with this man and the Democratic party. There is going to be a reckoning and we are all going to have to suffer.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:31AM

It's true that Obama sides with corporations and Republicans, and I think you're right that many would not support him if they looked more deeply into this.

Osamas Pajamas| 3.12.10 @ 1:38AM

Dont't be silly, Clare. OhBummer was elected only because those who have illicitly taken up residence inside the wallets of the privately-employed taxpayers of America would have elected Gumbi or Hitler or anyone else who would help them maintain their illicit grip on OPM - Other Peoples' Money. "Having faith" in any president [or politician, bureaucrat or so-called public servant] is a serious intellectual error. These clowns work for us, so it sounds to me like they should pay attention to the Constitution [their job description] and the privately-employed taxpayers. As for "his" healthcare bill, we should set it abaze and whiz on it to put the fire out. I don't need him or the OhBummer Wrecking Crew at large to try to dictate the terms of my existence. Better to overthrow them all.

Osamas Pajamas| 3.12.10 @ 1:41AM

Geez, Clare. Faith rots the brain. You sound like someone pooped in your ear and it fell out your mouth.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:34AM

You seem to have a lot of faith.

Blove| 3.12.10 @ 10:37AM

We don't give President Obama the benefit of the doubt because he has been duplicitous in many of his political transactions over the years. His original sponsors and benefactors are a hodgepodge of reactionaries, former terrorists and are overtly agitators against America. Rev Wright, Father Phlegle (?), Rahm Emanual and the rest of the corrupt political machine in Illinois and that couple from the Weather underground in Chicago. His associations and actions are very sketchy.

Runninbear| 3.12.10 @ 1:21PM

If your child came and told you a lie every day would you continue to have faith in him that his "Honestly and "transparenticy" would prevail?
NO and neither should we continue to follow someone who's only qualifications that got him the job? was because of his color? If you gave this guy the Highest position in the land because he had more pigmentation in his skin,and has lied cheated and decieved the american people by forcing this Government control of our economy and call it Health care? then why don't you vote a Native American to the job.he couldn't do any worst than the Lying loser we have now ,and you wouldn't have a Native american sealing up his B.C and costing the taxpayers more wasted tax money?claiming to be a "Natural Borned citizen that Barrack "Hussien" Obama/Barry Davis Soetoro who has been proved beyond the need for a B.C. that he isn't and never has been a citizen of this country?
If you think Im lying then sign the petitons that Obama/Soetoro hasn't 30 plus social security numbers,and his student admission I.D. card that states he was a Muslim?,he was adopted and did attend school in Indoniesa which only "Indoniesan citizens could attend school,and later when he returned he obtained an "Indoniesan passport"where he traveled "Freely" through countries like "Pakistan".The facts speak for themselves and the truth is here and this is why we can follow Barrack aka Barry over the cliff that will be our undoing?The simple answer to your blog is this ?
HES A BALD FACED LAIR THAT CAN'T EVEN SHOW HIS REAL bITH CERITIFATE THAT HE SWEARS HE HAS?

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 1:38PM

Racial hatred is not pretty!

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 6:29PM

Neither is marxism!

Runninbear| 3.12.10 @ 1:21PM

If your child came and told you a lie every day would you continue to have faith in him that his "Honestly and "transparenticy" would prevail?
NO and neither should we continue to follow someone who's only qualifications that got him the job? was because of his color? If you gave this guy the Highest position in the land because he had more pigmentation in his skin,and has lied cheated and decieved the american people by forcing this Government control of our economy and call it Health care? then why don't you vote a Native American to the job.he couldn't do any worst than the Lying loser we have now ,and you wouldn't have a Native american sealing up his B.C and costing the taxpayers more wasted tax money?claiming to be a "Natural Borned citizen that Barrack "Hussien" Obama/Barry Davis Soetoro who has been proved beyond the need for a B.C. that he isn't and never has been a citizen of this country?
If you think Im lying then sign the petitons that Obama/Soetoro hasn't 30 plus social security numbers,and his student admission I.D. card that states he was a Muslim?,he was adopted and did attend school in Indoniesa which only "Indoniesan citizens could attend school,and later when he returned he obtained an "Indoniesan passport"where he traveled "Freely" through countries like "Pakistan".The facts speak for themselves and the truth is here and this is why we can follow Barrack aka Barry over the cliff that will be our undoing?The simple answer to your blog is this ?
HES A BALD FACED LAIR THAT CAN'T EVEN SHOW HIS REAL bITH CERITIFATE THAT HE SWEARS HE HAS?

Runninbear| 3.12.10 @ 1:21PM

If your child came and told you a lie every day would you continue to have faith in him that his "Honestly and "transparenticy" would prevail?
NO and neither should we continue to follow someone who's only qualifications that got him the job? was because of his color? If you gave this guy the Highest position in the land because he had more pigmentation in his skin,and has lied cheated and decieved the american people by forcing this Government control of our economy and call it Health care? then why don't you vote a Native American to the job.he couldn't do any worst than the Lying loser we have now ,and you wouldn't have a Native american sealing up his B.C and costing the taxpayers more wasted tax money?claiming to be a "Natural Borned citizen that Barrack "Hussien" Obama/Barry Davis Soetoro who has been proved beyond the need for a B.C. that he isn't and never has been a citizen of this country?
If you think Im lying then sign the petitons that Obama/Soetoro hasn't 30 plus social security numbers,and his student admission I.D. card that states he was a Muslim?,he was adopted and did attend school in Indoniesa which only "Indoniesan citizens could attend school,and later when he returned he obtained an "Indoniesan passport"where he traveled "Freely" through countries like "Pakistan".The facts speak for themselves and the truth is here and this is why we can follow Barrack aka Barry over the cliff that will be our undoing?The simple answer to your blog is this ?
HES A BALD FACED LAIR THAT CAN'T EVEN SHOW HIS REAL bITH CERITIFATE THAT HE SWEARS HE HAS?

Frank Kovach| 3.14.10 @ 12:35PM

I don't have blind faith in any one person, except for Jesus Christ. No one, I mean no one can be our "saviour." Everyone is flawed, and if we just say give him the benefit of the doubt, without asking the hard questions, without scrutinizing motives and policies, without asking ourselves "is this the best course of action," without looking at alternatives, we deserve our fate.

Michael | 3.16.10 @ 8:11AM

Charlie:
How can you live in this great country and not be proud of its greatness? America has nothing to apologize to the world for...except President Obama. He has diminished our reputation in the world. As the leader of the world's only real superpower - or, at the very least, a co-equal on the world stage - President Obama should never bow to another leader. Nor should he ever hint - even apologetically - that America is wrong.
The United States of America must make any and all decisions based not only on what is best for the world at large, but, in the final analysis, on what is best for the American People.
America or Americans should never have to apologize for who we are. We are the nation that won World War II! Remember Lend Lease? Yes, we fought beside England and Russia, Canada, and the rest of the freedom loving peoples of the world, but without many thousand trucks, tanks and other war materiel made here in the U.S., many of these countries would not have survived.
Now before you go off on me, remember, I said Americans have reason to be proud. I did not say arrogant. Humility is the key.
As for our current President, he has one group to which he owes a deep apology...the American People. He and Congress have clearly ingored the majority of Americans in pursuit of this collossal boondoggle known as Health Care Reform. We have repeatedly let them know that we don't want it, yet they continue to lobby and cajole and push to get it passed. I submit that they are not doing their jobs, which is to represent the will of the people. The people have spoken. That is the message in a nutshell. Congress and the President had better wise up and start representing the will of the people or get fired in the next election.

stephanie| 3.11.10 @ 6:35AM

WTF? Are you joking Clare?

Ret. Marine| 3.11.10 @ 6:45AM

To la-la- land Clare. Let me count the ways, he's a liar, he a politician, he's not an American, he's so full of sheet his eyes are brown, oh did I mention he's a liar. You are off your med's this morning-right? Go back to sleep Clare, it's a bad dream you're having.
When he produces a long form birth certificate, stops thinking some one gave him the right to "fundamentaly change this Nation" and stops licking the boot heels of tyrants around the world, stops apologizing for our uniqueness as a free people to make our individual choices pretaining to our lives, oh WTF, why bother, go back to sleep little Clare, you obviously need some rest.

Spinny| 3.11.10 @ 6:45AM

Stephanie, no, she is not joking. Probably an ACORN member or something like that. I mean, read what she wrote! It sounds like it was written by some pimply-faced kid in the White House a propaganda for activists who are being encouraged to call talk radio or comment on blogs. But in any event, Clare is a complete idiot.

Levinite| 3.11.10 @ 7:33AM

Clare,
Do you vote?

If so, do us all a favor and STOP!

Publius| 3.11.10 @ 7:55AM

Clare, "when He tells us his health bill is what We need" (emphasis added for your sake), is exactly the problem, particularly when it will induce devastating results. Try thinking for yourself for once in your life. On the other hand, considering the capabilities you just demonstrated in that regard------never mind.

Louis Jenkins| 3.11.10 @ 8:24AM

"The move acknowledges that the public sector has failed to properly police itself. Obama, who reflexively opposes "privatization" on principle, has expanded the privatization of an important government function -- auditing the government's own books. "

No, No. We don't want the private sector to audit the Federal Books! The Pretender n Chief has led us to believe that the District of Criminals can do no wrong. As Clare said, "The president tells us....what we need." Private auditors might find something fishy, then they'd have to be bought off to keep their silence and cook the books.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 8:50AM

Clare has the same irrational response to Obama that you guys have to Sarah. What don't you understand?

George S| 3.11.10 @ 8:51AM

With Obama, it's another scam... find a few billion in waste that can be thrown under the bus and "award" a percentage of it to auditors with Chicago zip codes.

Gerry| 3.11.10 @ 9:15AM

To keep it simple this fool is the biggest liar that's ever occupied the white house.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 9:24AM

WMD in Iraq???? You must be simple...

RJ| 3.11.10 @ 10:42AM

Yeah. WMD in Iraq. About 4.5 metric tons. Plus illegal missiles. Where were you?

G2| 3.11.10 @ 10:42AM

Bob have you had you meds today?

MikeBee| 3.11.10 @ 11:33AM

5 tons of yellowcake uranium. Fighter aircraft covered in the sand. Illegal missiles. Chemical weapons. I could go on. Every civilized nation agreed, prior to going into Iraq, that WMDs existed there. Even the Democrats agreed that WMDs existed there, when B. Clinton was pres. The above items, and more, were actually found when we occupied. G.W. Bush didn't find more, because it took him so dXmn long to go in there, allowing Saddam to truck a lot of it into Syria, where it sits today. The only reason it took Bush so long to go in there was that he was trying to please the liberal Democrats, who were shouting, frantically, "OMG!!! DON'T GO IN THERE!! WE MIGHT GET HURT!!!!!!!
Try to stay informed, Bob.....

Joe Wilson| 3.11.10 @ 5:02PM

Opinions are great but facts are better.
Even the Democrats agreed. Maybe some did. In reality, nobody knew. Until they let inspectors in.
Before the invasion of Iraq, weapons inspectors were allowed in the country and were free to inspect wherever they chose. They found no existing WMD or programs. They were forced to leave by the Bush administration because the 'coalition' was ready to invade.
He shipped them to Syria? Who said so,Sean Hannity?
Many countries in the world have WMD. Only one of them was slated for invasion prior to the Bush presidency.
Those people advocating for the Iraq invasion, chiefly members of the Project For a New American Century, wanted to bring about regime change. Since 1992. In Iraq.
These people ended up in high positions in the Bush Administration, and used the tragedy of 9/11 to push through the Iraq invasion under false pretenses.
Any conservabot can confirm these facts by researching the PNAC and its members, but here's a quick list from memory:
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, William Kristol, Wolfowitz.
Look it up if you can handle the truth. I'm guessing you cannot.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 7:37PM

Joe Wilson,

YOU LIE!

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 9:22PM

Nick:

Suppressing my instinctive desire to say "No, YOU lie!".....

Suggest you do what any sane, rational person does: check the facts.

Even the most ardent supporters of the invasion's rationale are now "walking back"/"taking back"/"withdrawing"/"explaining away" their previously absolute positions.

It's tragi-comedy on a high scale.

Haven't had so many hoots since Nuremberg.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 9:36PM

Mr. Novy,

Not this "ardent supporter."

I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom then. I support it now. I have never wavered in my support for both the troops and the mission.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 7:32AM

Jon B,

Are you having fun? I am.

I've exposed your comments for the asinine tripe that they are.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:37AM

You can't reverse reality with mere words. You can, however, make yourself feel good, or macho on a fanatical message board by making stuff up like you are right now.

Joe Wilson| 3.12.10 @ 10:31AM

I've exposed your comments for the asinine tripe that they are.
What's it like in fantasyland?
You clearly have not looked into the PNAC because if you had, you'd know that the Iraq invasion was planned well before Bush got into office.
If you support a resource war of choice which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent 'brown' people, then that's your choice.
But do not pretend it was about something noble or honorable. If you can ignore the facts of why and how we ended up in Iraq, there is no point in having a discussion. You are just here to 'score points' with your fellow deniers of reality.
Keep those blinders on, because it is hard to look at the truth and still hold on to your beliefs about reality.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 10:51AM

If you supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (death is freedom?) it is because you never heard the original name of the operation, nor understood its' true purpose.
Operation Iraqi Liberation, or OIL.
You can see why they had to change the name; otherwise even people like you might be able to solve the riddle of why we were going there.
Support for the troops is fine; the true mission, however, (not accomplished to this day) is unsupportable. Unless murdering civilians to achieve that goal is o.k. with you.
Joe Wilson is right; you can't handle the truth.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 12:16PM

Yeah, you and Joe Wilson are of the same mind, aren't you?

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 7:36AM

You're right, they can;t handle it.

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 5:22PM

MikeBee,

Finally someone else who understands most of the stuff we went in there to find and destroy was shipped to Syria before we could get there. I'll never forget the arial feed Fox News showed of that Iraqi convoy heading across the desert into Syria. Seriously, does anyone believe it was anything other than WMDs? It also goes a long was in explaining how Syria was able to amass such an advanced nuclear program in such a short time. So much so that Israel felt the need to blow it up. Yes, Iran is a possibility, but the timeline fits with better with the exodus from Iraq.

Joe Wilson| 3.11.10 @ 5:40PM

I'll never forget the arial feed Fox News showed of that Iraqi convoy heading across the desert into Syria.
WOW. An 'arial' (sic) feed huh.m From Iraq. Showing convoys of......weapons, or so you assume, going to Syria from Iraq. What else could they be?
Yes, what could possibly be in some anonymous trucks going who knows where, because you have to take Fox's word for it that
A. The trucks were coming from Iraq.
B. The trucks were going to Syria.
C. The footage was even shot concurrently, i.e. it could be any convoy crossing any desert going anywhere, but Fox says it's weapons.
D. There are weapons in the trucks.
Hmm. Was this before or after the weapons inspectors did the inspecting?
If you were about to be invaded, and planned to fight back, would you really ship your weapons to Syria or use them to kill Americans.
Oh that Saddam was so crafty.
He presumably had nukes and chemical weapons during Gulf War I, yet never used them then either.
Hmmm.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 9:24PM

Find it uncannily apt that "simple" and "fool" are so closely juxtaposed in your post.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 9:26AM

My snide comments aside, Paul Ryan, IMHO, is the best conservatives have to offer. He has intelligent and honest solutions to our economic issues -- and is the only one in either party to do so. If Obama uses some of his solutions, I'm for it, even if it is political.

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:57PM

Agree and disagree.

Agree that Paul Ryan is about the best conservatives have to offer.

Disagree about the "intelligent and honest" stuff.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 9:27AM

Pay no attention to Bob's posts above.

He is known as 3/5 Bob, because until last June, he thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote, under the original U.S. Constitution.

He also doesn't know the scientific fact of when human biological life begins because he is unsure of when "ensoulment" happens.

He also claimed he translated the Bible from the original Aramaic when he was a teenager.

He is a pseudo-intellectual and an anti-Christian bigot.

Don't waste your time arguing with him.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 9:36AM

1/5 Nick -- Nice to hear from you again. I do feel sorry for you that you have so much hate in your heart and don't have the ability to respond to the topic. I'll have some religious people pray for you....

Here are some references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

1/5 Nick, please get those knuckles off of the floor if you are mentally capable....

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 9:56AM

3/5 Bob,

Thanks for the prayers, I sure can use them.

I will pray for you and your family, also, this Easter season.

Ensoulment has nothing to do with biology, by the way.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 10:01AM

"Ensoulment has nothing to do with biology, by the way."

That's exactly MY point. Biologically, a few cells are not a human being.... The argument on abortion is primarily religious, not biological. When did YOU finish your college course in embryology? I actually had the class.....

Doorgunner| 3.11.10 @ 10:27AM

Please enlighten us, EmBobologist, what is the magic number of cells that constitute "a human being"? Or is it 'viability outside the womb'? Assisted or unassisted? What is assistance; is it hospital machinery or merely a mother nursing an infant that cannot fend for itself? Why is it that some states have laws that provide for two counts of murder if the perpetrator kills a pregnant woman, but in those same states that same pregnant woman may legally 'terminate the pregnancy'? Isn't "terminate the pregnancy" just some eupemistic language to make murderers feel better about themselves? Since the days when "actually had the class" have you actually acquired any consistent morality at all?

"The argument on abortion is primarily religious, not biological" is statement worthy of something more than a few cells short of a man.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 10:31AM

Alzheimers setting in, 3/5 Bob?

It was YOU who argued that you didn't know when human life began, because you weren't sure when "ensoulment" occured.

It was YOU who brought theology into a scientific debate.

So, I will ask you again: If it doesn't begin at conception, when EXACTLY does human life begin?

As I have told you in the past, you should sue the college that gave you passing grades in U.S. history without teaching you the Constitution, and now, this course in embryology you claim you took.

Although, you don't mention if you passed, so you might not have a case.

Alan Brooks| 3.11.10 @ 9:29AM

"Clare has the same irrational response to Obama that you guys have to Sarah. What don't you understand?"

Palin is not POTUS, and wont be for a decade or so.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 9:33AM

But the response is the same...

MikeBee| 3.11.10 @ 11:43AM

Bob,
Again, way off, as usual. If you really tried to observe, rather than simply comment on life, you would note that conservatives give THEIR elected presidents far more trouble than do liberals, who act like Clare (above) around any of the liberals who get elected. It was conservatives who took G.W. Bush to task about his stand on illegal immigration. It was conservatives who gave his father the boot after breaking his claim not to increase taxes. We would do the same thing to Sarah, if she were POTUS, and decided to do something stupid. What is it about Obama that makes liberals act like Clare (above), and relinquish all intellectual and critical function?

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:13PM

"you would note that conservatives give THEIR elected presidents far more trouble than do liberals"

Yes I remember all the conservative outrage against the deficit during the bush years, despite cheney telling us 'Reagan proved, deficits don't matter', still you conservatives could be heard throughout talk radio land castigating bush for increasing the deficit by more than all of the previous presidents combined.
Conservatives didn't give his father the boot, Ross Perot did.
We would do the same thing to Sarah, if she were POTUS, and decided to do something stupid.
Yeah, like she is doing on a daily basis; you really have to hand it to her.
It was conservatives who took G.W. Bush to task about his stand on illegal immigration
That part is true. They were foaming at the mouth.
On both extremes of the political spectrum are airheads who accept the spoon-fed bs from their respective political leaders.
Let's face it, neither party is doing the American people right. No wonder congress has about 10% approval.

Osamas Pajamas| 3.12.10 @ 1:45AM

Hit, there, Dan Mingo Dingo! You're just a Democrat, right? Whizzin' in the soup for all it's worth? Zip it up, if you can find it again.

Alan Brooks| 3.11.10 @ 9:32AM

"To keep it simple this fool is the biggest liar that's ever occupied the white house."

That might turn out to be an asset in the postmodern (or is it post-postmodern?) world.

Shamus| 3.11.10 @ 6:36PM

His narrative is compelling. But don't buy a used car from him.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.11.10 @ 9:52AM

Screw Bob.
He plans on voting for O again. Nuff said.

OK,
back to serious conversation. Four years ago, we were a small "non-reporting" publicly traded company. We were doing splendidly and growing some 35% per year in revenue.
Several of our key stockholders seriously encouraged us to "go fully reporting".

We looked into it, got a lot of legal and "independent auditor" advice....(all lies as to cost), and proceeded to become "fully reporting", (To the SEC)
(Those of you who are stock investors probably are already laughing out loud, but I gotta' finish this.)

Those audits...with reams.....reams.....of footnotes and "indecipherable definitions"...made the actual NUMBERS meaningless......except to other GAAP certified auditors. Heh.

Thank you "Sarbane Oxley" act. (new reporting rules)
I can here report to you that any "independent audit" of the feds would simply obfuscate the NUMBERS!................forever.

Honestly, as CFO of our company, it took me WEEKS to decipher each finished Quarterly Review and annual Audit...........and I already knew where every single dime came in and went out during the reporting periods.
SO,
after each audit came out on the SEC website, I wrote a half page news-wire release...with REAL numbers, knowing if I was challenged, I could go to jail.
Heh.....all I got were hundreds of thank yous.
God bless our stockholders.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 10:06AM

Actually, Ken, you must be getting old because your short term memory is going. I've said that if Republicans put up a smart candidate like Romney, he will get my vote. But I won't vote for any of those social conservative only idiots...

MikeBee| 3.11.10 @ 11:57AM

Ken,
I fully agree! Great move to counter that crXp. I think it would be a very good thing to shut down FASB for 20 years or so, as they keep coming up with nonsense that just makes economic downturns worse. Congress should overturn their ruling to value fixed assets at fair market value; this ruling alone exacerbated the present recession, causing many companies and banks to lose their collateral base almost overnight.

I work as an accountant, and some of this stuff that the FASB is coming up with (of late), and is being enacted in honor of Sarbanes-Oxley, is just garbage.

Troll Watch| 3.11.10 @ 9:59AM

"Screw Bob."

Don't get Bob excited.

Bob| 3.11.10 @ 10:04AM

Believe me, Ken is not my type.... But it is obvious he is a very angry man. Perhaps that's because he doesn't understand basic math???? He's never been able to argue actually using data and once admitted he didn't look at the bottom line.... Hmmmm....

Troll Watch| 3.11.10 @ 10:18AM

Bob is projecting again.

ncatty| 3.11.10 @ 10:14AM

Bob is not a liberal nor an Obama supporter. He is a Calvin Coolidge Republican. That is a good thing.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 10:34AM

Ha-ha!

That's a good one ncatty.

I didn't know Silent Cal was an atheistic anti-Christian bigot!

ncatty| 3.11.10 @ 10:50AM

The social issues that drive politics today weren't issues during the Coolidge era. The proper role of government was an issue then and now. Based on what I read here, folks like Bob would prefer not to make social issues the sticking point.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 11:03AM

ncatty,

That's because people back then had brains and common sense.

Back in 20's, only kooks, like 3/5 Bob, would argue for abortion.

If someone can't understand the right to life, they will have no problem taking away the right to property.

As 3/5 Bob constantly proves by advocating higher taxes. Something President Coolidge fought against, by the way.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.11.10 @ 10:17AM

Sorry, Troll watch. I forgot.
To clarify, Bob, no.....I WRITE the bottom line. Have for 34 years now.
2+2=4 ...except to a GAAP accountant.

Susan Brei| 3.11.10 @ 10:38AM

Obama is a moderate Democrat. He's open to both liberal and conservative ideas. He knows the majority of the country lies in the middle somewhere. Why is this move surprising?

What surprises me is the philosophical "purity" at both ends of the political spectrum. In reality, where we actually live, sometimes it IS good to privatize, and sometimes it's not. You can over-regulate, or you can under-regulate. You need socialist programs to solve some problems, and for most others, the free market does a fine job without government intervention.

Duh.

RJ| 3.11.10 @ 10:47AM

Moderate? Maybe when compared to Chavez or Castro. Then again, he hasn't been in power as long as those two. In fact, it was Chavez who stated that he and Castro, "will be on Obama's right, if they're not careful" or words to that effect.

This clown is a socialist, pure and simple!

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:20PM

RJ| 3.11.10 @ 10:47AM
This clown is a socialist, pure and simple!
Yes, a socialist. So scary to think social programs may get funded and people get help. Jesus would be appalled. Abortion is murder but once born, you're on your own sucka.
Did you know that 'socialist clown' just gave us the biggest tax cut to the middle class in our history.
Of course you did, you're well read and intelligent.

Troll Watch| 3.11.10 @ 10:49AM

He was the most liberal Senator and that included an open socialist. Triangulation is a stupid sell.

Freeranger| 3.11.10 @ 11:03AM

Yes, Obama is a moderate. But this hasn't always served him well, especially in the health care debate.

"Moderate" solutions to the health care crisis of spiraling cost and poor coverage will not be solved with half measures. I see nothing being proposed by either party that provides coverage for all and cuts costs. Obama's moderate and hopelessly complex plan only makes things worse and nothing being proposed by Republicans will provide coverage for all.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 11:07AM

Freeranger,

"[...] nothing being proposed by Republicans will provide coverage for all."

Because most (I think) Republicans do not believe in Marxism.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:21PM

Nor Christianity.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 5:36PM

DanMingo (3/5 Bob),

That would be the democrat party that doesn't believe in Christianity.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 6:45PM

Whoever is complaining about paying for 'welfare' for the poor lacks Christian values, regardless of political affiliation.
Believing in 'Christianity' is more than words, it is deeds. Christian values, although encouraging self-reliance, also encompass loving thy neighbor, and Jesus fed and healed rich and poor alike.
Our system only seeks to foster the rich, and screw the poor.
Christianity is not just opposing abortion, but supporting those who have chosen life, even when it means financial hardship. You cannot insist on a women carrying an unwanted child, then abandon that child once born. Should he/she get free healthcare if unable to afford it or just get sick and die?
You cannot have it both ways, either you support Christian values or you do not. Picking and choosing isn't an option.
I am not a fan of either party, Dem or Rep. Let's not pretend one is better than the other. They just take care of their own, and that ain't us.
Unless you are in the rich white man club.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 7:33PM

DanMingo,

Careful, envy is one of the 7 deadly sins. You had better give up this green-eyed monster, before it destroys you.

Now, show me where Christ said, " Go, and demand that Ceasar tax all of us more, so the poor can mooch off the rest of us."

Medical care is a SERVICE. Services cost money. You can't afford a service that is necessary? That is what charity is for.

You should try to something about your anti-white bigotry, by the way.

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 7:34PM

That should be: You should try to DO something...

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 10:58AM

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Do you even read the bible?
Anti-white bigotry?
Envy?
All I did was call out the hypocrites who claim to be Christians, but decry the values of Christianity by their actions or words.
Who do I envy? You?
HaHa.
I envy your ability to ignore reality.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 11:49AM

DanMingo,

Where did Christ say, "Pay more taxes for the poor."? He didn't. Your theology isn't Christian. It's marxist.

Christ teaches us to help the poor OURSELVES.
With our own deeds and our own money. He doesn't teach us to want our rulers to tax us more, so they can do good for the poor. What kind of charity is that?

Did you already forget what you wrote yesterday? It's above this post. You wrote: "Unless you are in the rich white man club." Why do you act surprised to be called a bigot?

You are envious of the wealthy. You covet what they have. You are breaking one of the Commandments. You want to take their wealth and give it to the poor.

Give your own wealth to the poor.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 1:41PM

Jesus thinks you're a jerk.

Nick| 3.12.10 @ 6:39PM

DanMingo,

Now you speak for Christ?
Or, do you think you're Christ, like David Koresh?
Or, did you get elected Pope?

First, you break the Commandment about coveting your neighbors goods. Now you are breaking the Commandment about using the Lord's name in vain.

That's two in one thread. You had better repent of your sins.

Shamus| 3.14.10 @ 5:25PM

Jesus would be spinning in his grave if he read this.

Nick| 3.15.10 @ 12:00AM

Go away anti-Christian bigot.

MikeBee| 3.12.10 @ 1:55PM

DanMingo,
I repeat something I wrote at another time for your sake, and for the sake of other liberal Marxists who may read here:

When a woman is raped, Christians go out of their way to assure her that she has NOT committed any sin. Why not? The 10 commandments say that sex with someone who is not your spouse is a sin. The reason that this woman has not sinned is that she did not have FREEDOM in this act. The act was forced upon her. An act which is bad is not a sin if the person doing the act was not FREE to do so.

In the same way, and using the same logic, a good act is not virtuous at all if the person performing the good act is not FREE to do so. When a government forces its citizens to do good things, like taking care of the poor, there is no Virtue in this. But, when individual citizens take it upon themselves to give to the poor, then Virtue is involved. Jesus marveled at the poor widow who gave from her poverty, as she FREELY CHOSE to give, even when she couldn't really afford to give to others.

In fact, before the Government got involved with forcing folks to give to the poor, the poor were still very well cared for, largely by charitable organizations. Also, there were fewer poor people (% of total population) prior to government handout programs for the poor. And, there were far more instances of poor people making it out of their class status into higher classes, prior to government handout programs. Marxist government handout programs have increased the numbers of the poor, locked more poor people into the unending cycle of poverty, and have nothing to do with Virtue or Christianity.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 2:17PM

Your point is well taken that, in a sense, taxing people to pay for social programs is forcible giving. But the government spends my money to kill people who happen to live near America's oil. And uses the military to impose our will around the world. I disagree with this forcible taking of my money (I pay taxes too) for those purposes than I do for social problems.

"Marxist government handout programs have increased the numbers of the poor, "
The government policies that have led to the failed economy (Reaganomics) are not the fault of the now newly unemployed and underemployed. The government makes decisions that have led us to where we are now, and people have been hurt by those decisions.
I tend to side with the governmental decisions that help people, not hurt them.
Example; this analysis of Reagans policies:
Another recent critique of Reagan's policies stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The tax reform was ostensibly to reduce or eliminate tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/.....index.html
In other words, transferred taxes from upper income to lower income people, or upward income redistribution. In fact, despite his reputation, Reagan was responsible for the largest tax increase in our history; only it exempted the rich, and focused on the middle/lower classes.
We saw this with the Bush tax cuts as well.
I appreciate your non-confrontational approach to a discussion, so rare and lacking here.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:32PM

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

danfromatlanta| 3.11.10 @ 12:32PM

What exactly is moderate or centrist about what obamanation has done? He makes noises that sound like a rational centrist, but everything he does is HARD LEFT! Don't hold your breath for anything like an incentive based audit of government programs. This is justr another obamanation head fake!

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:29PM

danfromatlanta:

What's with this playground name-calling "obamanation" shit?

Grow up. Try to say something productively critical, eh?

Sigmoid Freud| 3.11.10 @ 6:52PM

everything he does is HARD LEFT
So you could name a few things for examples.
Largest tax cut for the middle class in U.S. history. Check.
Increasing troops in Afghanistan. Check.
Allowing the continuation of secret prisons, rendition and Guantanamo. Check.
Not investigating the torture and war crimes of the previous administration. Check.
Vowing to fight for single payer, then the public option, then dropping them for a plan to benefit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Check
Not allowing the release of incriminating CIA torture photos. Check
Making Republicans part of his administration. Check.
Keeping on Defense Secretary Gates. Check.
Bailing out big business and the banks and financial institutions. Check.
HARD LEFTY OBAMA

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 8:55PM

Sigmoid:

You wouldn't be being just a tad facetious/sarcastic here, would you?

lol

Actually... lmao.

Well concatenated.

Sam| 3.11.10 @ 2:09PM

Well said Susan! I am glad some moderation and clear thinking have been restored to AmSpec. I grow tired of reading right-wingers call Obama names and it's time for some actual criticism- unless you righties like Obama and the Dems giving it to you up the you-know-where in elections!

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:31PM

Hear, hear.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:41PM

Susan:

Not so fast with your "duh," okay?

The way "socialist policies" and "free-market dynamics" interact/intertwine/intermingle (a whole shitload of "inter-ing"), is not so simple to "balance," methinks. Where you have a system like ours (U.S.), I think we have something more approximating a bar-room brawl than a Victorian gentleman's debate club.

John II| 3.11.10 @ 10:47AM

" Obama, who reflexively opposes 'privatization' on principle, has expanded the privatization of an important government function . . ."

Slight emendation to an otherwise useful and intelligent piece. Professor Obama opposes "privatization" on the basis of his kneejerk collectivist ideology. In the normal sense of the word, his behavior indicates that he has no principle at all.

Lee Kenaga| 3.11.10 @ 11:13AM

Barack Obamo is so narcistic that he spends an
hour before the mirror in adoration, before he
dresses and goes down to the oval office, where he
thinks about the next Saudi prince to pay homage
to with a bow.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:26PM

Lee:

Get a dictionary. Wait, no, get a grammar primer too. Wait, no, get a history book. Wait, no, get an education.

Wait, no ... get a brain.

A shameful, ignorant, illiterate comment, guy.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 6:55PM

I assume it bothered you then when GW smooched and held hands with Saudi princes.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 8:59PM

Good one, DanMingo.

And creepy.

Thanks, ever so much, for that image. ;)

NJK| 3.11.10 @ 11:23AM

By the way, this guy is brilliant, articulate, and would make a wonderful President in the future. All of the things they claimed about Obama, but Ryan actually is. I bet he would release his college records, and long form version birth certificate too. I have no doubt he's American born, and an American citizen.

Mike| 3.11.10 @ 11:35AM

More government is what is going to come out of this.

So Obama uses Unionized private companies to find fraud. They do. So the government hires more workers to try and prevent the fraud.

Seems like typical Obama. More for the unions and bigger government

Bill H.| 3.11.10 @ 11:58AM

These audits sound like a useful idea. Perhaps the former President should be criticized also for not using them. Mr. Ryan's idea for an $11000 tax credit for low income persons would be perfectly useless because most of us on low incomes -- including retired persons like me -- don't earn enough to pay income taxes. Ryan must know this -- I think his suggestion is deceitful.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:23PM

Bill H.:

Yeah, one has to wonder: if it's such a great, obvious idea for "conserving" resources (what I take to be the essence of true "conservatism"), why wasn't it implemented during Reagan's or either Bushes' terms, eh?

Right. Deceit and hypocrisy are afoot.

Neo-libertarian| 3.11.10 @ 12:02PM

“Obama Accepts Paul Ryan’s Premise”
No, he has not, Obama will say anything, any time, for any reason as long as it will move foreword his progressive agenda. POTUS has done what no one deemed possible; his reputation has surpassed even Jon Lovitz. Paul Ryan on the other hand speaks the truth with eloquence.

john| 3.11.10 @ 12:16PM

Unfortunately, this whole disagreement is NOT about right vs wrong, right vs left, or liberal vs conservative...it is about the rights of individuals vs the "it takes a village" mentality of "group-think"..well, every village has a "village idiot," and he is leading us to the "Promised Land" and all we have to do is trust him, and believe him when he says that he is smarter than us..God help us all, because there are enough people out there in good old America that would rather be led by a Village Idiot than think, and do, what is best for themselves. Yikes, I thought this whole country was based on the individual..

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:20PM

john:

Excellent point about rights of the individual vs. "it takes a village.

Yeah, it is a bitch, isn't it? Without the "village," the "individual" wouldn't stand much chance. But, then again, the village might lynch somebody who was a tad too "individual."

lol

Damn. How to balance that.

For me, it's "socialism" -- a blend of legally-granted individual rights in the context of a social body. Acknowledge that a majority usually dominates, but protect minorities from unreasonable persecution.

Bingo. The United States -- with its Constitution enumerating governmental powers and reserving individual rights of exemption from.

Don't know what else to say.

Cheers.

NANG| 3.11.10 @ 12:26PM

So, how DO you ferret out fraud and waste?

danfromatlanta| 3.11.10 @ 12:33PM

Best way is to get rid of liberals in government. Any other questions I can help you with?

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:11PM

Yeah, danfromatlanta, help me with THIS one: when you-all have gotten rid of all the "liberals" in government, how do you plan on dealing with all the "nonliberals" left? You think they're going to leave you alone? Oh hell no. They're coming for your guns (because you might take them to work and shoot your corporate bosses), they're coming for your job (because you can easily be replaced by a robot or cheaper foreign worker), they're coming for your home (because some entrepreneur needs it for a new strip mall), they're coming for your kids (because you can't be trusted to indoctrinate them thoroughly enough to grow up to be obedient workers), and then they're coming for YOU, because you have the gall to think you can post your opinions to a place like this with impunity.

Whew.

Out of breath.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh.....but do you get my point?

NANG| 3.12.10 @ 10:33AM

George Bush wasn't known for his fiscal conservatism.

justplainbill| 3.11.10 @ 12:44PM

The final Obama biography will be entitled "The Mendacity of the Dope."

Wally| 3.11.10 @ 12:52PM

Paul Ryan? This is the guy whose budget balancing proposal... does not balance the budget. Huh? More importantly, Ryan's proposal INCREASES taxes on the middle class to pay off the debt and drops them on the super rich. Obama's current efforts do the inverse. It is pretty obvious that the Ryan and the American Spectator are in the pockets of large corporations and the super wealthy. Those of you who are middle class who buy into this scam are remarkably naive.

BTW, for all the haters and racists here, like respectively Deb and Ret. Marine, the President's approval ratings are higher than the huge majority he got in the election. Majority. Do you know what that means in a democracy? Or do you think that the birther 25% should set the rules?

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 1:12PM

Wally,

I guess the Beav' was the smart one in the family, huh?

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 6:01PM

Yeah, Wally -- and Ryan "represents" a region of Wisconsin that HAD been historically blue-collar pro-union (UAW-Janesville).

I choke on Ryan's ability to hornswoggle those folks the way I did Reagan's.

Argh.

Eric Olsen| 3.11.10 @ 1:03PM

To All Commentatorss:
First, there has never been a "crisis" in the healthcare industry. Secondly, health insurers do not provide healthcare- they only pay for your healthcare.
There are numerous areas of the healthcare delivery system that stand to improve performance, and through this lower the costs to the insurers and subsequently YOU. We do not need the Federal Government to set any rules, propose solutions or create new entitlements for insurance.
Presently. Medicare and MedicAid both are administered by a quasi government agency. It is a massive task to undertake administration of those two entitlement programs and do it in a smooth, efficient manner. Therefore, how can we believe that enacting a new and larger Government insurance plan will succeed where the existing agencies have not. Both Medicare and MedicAid are now broke. Is that any way to run a "business"?
The challenge has been to provide currently uninsured citizens health insurance. For that I believe the chaepest and more direct approach would be to apply the "Earned Income" tax benefit scheme for the uninsured who then purchase healthcare insurance. That may be too simple for those in Congress that perceive our healthcare so much in shambles that Congress alone can provide answers to improve that system; ergo, CHANGE IT!
Please folks, realize this: The political fabric of our nation is not woven from threads of logic nor noble behavior. It is a contest between human egos which at times becomes outrageously immoral.
Eric

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 5:56PM

Eric:

What? So you're just giving in to "we're all outrageously immoral" and saying "screw it all"?

Not me. At least not yet (lol).

You know, if Medicare and Medicaid WERE broke now, you'd have a point.

But they're not. (Don't buy that bullshit some of these corporate cretins are pushing.)

And even if they WERE....easy fix. Restore progressive income tax rates like those of just 40 years ago.

Not hard -- except for those who might have to give up gobs of unearned money.

Northern Rebel| 3.11.10 @ 1:13PM

Count me in! I'm an ugly American too, Debbie D, and proud of it!

The United Staes of America was not formed in order to "get along" with the rest of the world. Our founders came here to get the hell away from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has done nothing but prove what a good idea that was.

Europe and Asia compete to see who can produce the most murderous dictators, and South America fights to prove they are the best at organized crime. (Although the democrat party is working hard to compete with them)

Meanwhile, they have the nerve to call George W Bush a killer, and compare him to Hitler, unless they need our dollars, to recover from some disaster, usually one of their own making.

I'm not a fan of Barak Obama, but he hasn't enslaved our people, (yet) and devised devious methods of exterminating his enemies. At least we have the ability (so far) to vote his progressive butt out of office, in a couple years. You can't do that in China, Russia, or Venezuela.

If being an ugly American means that we love our country, and wish to protect it, and the values put forth in the oldest Constitution on Earth, then I'm down with it!

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 5:27PM

Ugly Americans are the ones who think 700,000 dead Iraqi civilians is just the price of freedom, and if the rest of the world has a problem with US imperialism, then screw em.
Nopthing wrong with defending our principles or values. We just have no right to impose them on the rest of the world, no matter how great WE think they are.

JimE| 3.11.10 @ 5:53PM

Dan you are a leftist buffoon. There is nothing else to say.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 6:59PM

A badge of honor.
Thank you sir for showing your contempt for any human being unfortunate enough to not be born in America.

JimE| 3.11.10 @ 10:41PM

Your country of birth has nothing to do with the arguement unless you believe the US owes you something which I suspect you do, get a job and pay your own way moron.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 11:08AM

Last year I earned the most income in my career.
(under 30k but that's good for me)
As for it being about where you are born, that was a response to this:
"The United Staes of America was not formed in order to "get along" with the rest of the world. Our founders came here to get the hell away from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has done nothing but prove what a good idea that was. "

We are truly fortunate, those of us born in the USA, but that does not give us the right to invade/overthrow the governments of other countries, which is what we do, and have done, many times. Usually under the guise that we are doing it for their freedom/liberty.
Or do you deny the CIA's involvement in assassinations in places like Chile and Iran?
The facts are readily available should they be of interest to you.
I suspect the search for truth is not your mission.
Thanks for playing.

chuck| 3.11.10 @ 7:32PM

Where did you come up with 700,000 dead iraqi civilians? You throw out these wild assed numbers, back them up.

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 10:44PM

The numbers were provided to me by La Raza.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 11:24AM

The real DanMingo knows the difference between Latinos and Iraqis.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 11:22AM

Sure Chuck:
Highest estimate is over 1 million by Opinion Research business survey. I do not know who they are so no comment.
Second highest is from the Lancet Survey (I'm sure they're liberals or something...what...it's the world's leading medical journal...)
Anyway, they estimate about 654,000.
Since Lancet is a real medical journal, you have to register and pay, so I will link a Wiki entry which gives these stats.
Lowest civilian count they list is around 100,000.
So, chuck, let's assume the lowest number is correct.
That is 100,000 innocent civilians dead (collateral damage) and for what?
Really, for what?Are you okay with that many dead innocent people to achieve some PNAC dream goal.
Or do I have to prove the PNAC was real (they've taken down their website, but you should be able to find plenty about them elsewhere...I can help there.)
How many innocent dead people are okay with you to secure our energy supplies?
Wild assed numbers MY ass.

DanMingo| 3.12.10 @ 11:23AM

Here's that link. Sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....e_Iraq_War

Wellescent Health | 3.11.10 @ 1:14PM

The whole comment that using privatization is an admission of failure on the part of the US government in policing itself is too simplistic. All privatization of this service means is that this service is better provided by 'bounty hunters' because it is adversarial in nature and can be better served by an organization with a profit motive. In contrast, asking individuals to choose how to spend a preset allocation assumes each of us has the knowledge and ability to choose in advance what they need for health care.

In the medical field there are far too many unknowns to push the overall cost saving responsibility onto individuals. None of us wants to be paying additional taxes to cover others unexpected costs for hospitalization because they chose to 'save' on their health insurance or chose to avoid going for treatment based on their own assessment of the situation. While pure entitlement can lead to excess costs, the same is true of putting overly complex decisions into the hands of people not trained to make them.

It makes far more sense to provide incentives to those who regularly demonstrate healthy living habits based on assessments from regular checkups at their doctor. Choosing to follow some suggestions from a doctor on healthy living is something most of us are quite able to do.

For those who choose to solve all problems of inefficiency with the same purely capitalist tool set, it is important to remember that you would not use a screwdriver to pound in a nail. Different problems require different solutions to be applied.

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 5:43PM

Wellescent Health:

You started to lose me with the topic sentence of your second paragraph (thought it was going toward "nobody knows, so nobody can decide intelligently"), but I'm glad I kept reading.

"While pure entitlement can lead to excess costs, the same is true of putting overly complex decisions into the hands of people not trained to make them" was nicely put.

Your points about common-sense healthy-living/preventative health care also well taken.

Ralph

nick| 3.11.10 @ 1:29PM

as usual you GOP cons are liars and morons of the first order , Obama accepted ONE thing form Ryan - the rest of Ryan plan is crap and lies

Jason| 3.11.10 @ 1:55PM

The real story is that Paul Ryan accepts Obama's premise. This is the premise that the government has an obligation to provide health insurance to people. What's with all the welfare payments? $11,000?! Conservatives need a team player who is for abolition, not saving the welfare state.

MTcasings| 3.11.10 @ 2:07PM

Obamaites suffering from the the Dunning–Kruger Effect; a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"

ONTIME| 3.11.10 @ 2:15PM

Obama always speaks out both sides of his mouth and so far has not made good an any issue he has undertaken, he is however very good at deception, bravado, embellishment and consistent misuse of fact.

Obama is the guy who wore the tuxedeo to the ball and the brown shoes to match.

Northern Rebel| 3.11.10 @ 3:15PM

Nick:

I don't have time to shoot your bullshit full of holes, but I'm confident that others will send you crawling back to the Puffington post, where you belong.

JJ| 3.11.10 @ 3:20PM

What is hilarious is that the media takes Pelosi and Reid seriously. This, after burning down Bush and Cheney.

Pelosi does her "eeensty-beentsy-spider" thing and the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) pass it along with a straight face.

FIX THE MEDIA, SAVE AMERICA.

Iris| 3.11.10 @ 3:25PM

The worthy effort to reduce the deficit is doomed unless the ideas work, are pragmatic. That's where the last administration failed. Tax cuts at the top, middle or bottom add deficit, and it's fantasy to say they don't. OMB says Ryan's plan is a bound will build more deficit, and that some of the numbers he submitted weren't valid. Maybe it's a good idea to spend less time picking out shoes, and get to the hard, practical work of planning, not showmanship.

Joe The Fex Ex Driver| 3.11.10 @ 3:36PM

Wasn't it President Obama who said "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, its the post office that's always having problems?" And remember how very briefly during Clinton's first term, he used to brag about how he had cut staff members in the White House, to prove he wasn't a Big Government Liberal? Even if it was just symbolic at least he made the effort. Even Hillary, deep down, knows that government doesn't create wealth. She may want to redistribute it for polical gain and power retention, but compared to this crowd she's a moderate. Obama (and Michelle too) seem to think all wealth creation is evil, and, thus, is theirs to do with as they please.

martin j smith| 3.11.10 @ 4:02PM

A short summary of how I feel about BHO and his economic policies: I did not vopte for him for exactly the reasons we are seeing eminating from the situation we are in now. I saw him then and now as an ideologue,demogogue,dictatorial type.
Now that he has shown my view was 100% correct I can say:
I do not believe him at all. I have no faith in him as President, and I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE in the Democrat Party governing in our best interests. Other than that BHO and the Dems are doing great.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.11.10 @ 4:06PM

HOOO boy!
The Soros fools are out in force today. Anybody over 19 been convinced by them yet? heh.

You fools just keep earning your minimum wage here. It gives us a little entertainment.

Muriel P. Goyette| 3.11.10 @ 4:34PM

Making money from auditing?
Audit the FED. What a haul!

Nick| 3.11.10 @ 5:06PM

3/5 Bob? Where are you 3/5 Bob? Hey Bob?

Ncatty? Hello? Ncatty? Yo, ncatty?

How about Jon B? You out there, Jon B? Hello?

(Crickets....)

CJohnson| 3.11.10 @ 5:22PM

Obama adds a new incentive for caregivers. Just accept inadequate medicaid payments to guarantee being under federal investigation and penalized for typo's made by the khaki clad clerk zoned out on an iPod!
Where do I sign up?

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 5:33PM

Andrew:

As an avowed "socialist," I find myself surprisingly in basic agreement with you and Rep. Ryan -- for the first couple miles of his "roadmap" (until his marked route veers off into La-La Land where tax cuts for the rich are supposed to reduce the deficit).

Maybe it's NOT a bad idea to have "recapture audits" for Medicare and Medicaid. After all, money DOES motivate. If they can identify, say, $50b in waste/fraud which is returned to the public treasury, a 20% fee (just to pick a figure) for such service doesn't offhand seem unreasonable. I might be a socialist, but I'm also a pinch-penny. I want public bang for my buck.

But -- you know -- why stop there? Plenty of OTHER governmental programs might be suitably "efficientized" by such audits. As a matter of fact, let me rephrase my initial question to "Why START there?" If our goal is to minimize waste/fraud, how about starting with the Department of Defense and the Federal Reserve, just to name a couple of obvious targets? I'll betcha we get tons more out of THOSE audits.

Watcha think?

somnolence| 3.11.10 @ 6:32PM

I bet you I won't sign up for Medicare. I know that is contrary to what some think on this blog; that it is mandatory. Show me where it says that. I've already decided my fate, through personal savings, iras, etc. Nobody at the Social Security Office is going to tell me I HAVE to sign up for Medicare.

rdman| 3.11.10 @ 8:08PM

The irony Obami and his ilk face is that they unwittingly bring about what they most fear… REJECTION when their narcissism, exploitativeness, malice, deception, vindictiveness is realized by their worshippers and followers.

Obami and his ilk, who were so desirous of being affirmed are now exposed and despised as liars, subversive frauds and worse. So much of what their followers admired turned out to be false fronts, thin facades that are now collapsing, revealing Obami and his ilk as despotic thugs.

More and more of his worshippers and followers are finally realizing that they were so seduced by the slick package that they did not realize that there is nothing in it… the package was the message.

Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 8:32PM

The American Spectator : Obama Accepts Paul Ryan's Premise · Legal News – Your Sourc links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…The problem is that we don’t have a government regulated alternative (public option), and we shouldn’t be using the insurance … Go here to see the original: The American Spectator : Obama Accepts Paul Ryan's Premise This entry was posted on Thursday, March 11th, 2010 at 11:08 am and is filed under Insurance, Retirement, Benefits Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through…

MTB| 3.11.10 @ 8:48PM

I have no idea what this article says. I only read the title. Obama is lying.

Sambo| 3.11.10 @ 10:36PM

Know who would be great at Obama's plan? Gerald Walpin.

Jack | 3.11.10 @ 10:43PM

Hey. Thanks for this post. I cruise alot of blogs just to see what I can find. I liked this write up you did and was just wondering if you have a subscriber page so I can link to it so I can read it at a later date? I did not see one - am I just overlooking it?

Jack

Ralph Novy| 3.11.10 @ 11:24PM

Andrew:

Hmm. I tried to be civil in my earlier posts, but I just re-read your piece afresh.

It ain't fresh. It stinks. You start with "After talking incessantly...."

Untrue and unfair.

I should have written your piece off with as little thought as you put into it.

Pingback| 3.12.10 @ 1:12AM

Guillaume Desbiens vs Ryan Flinn 12/6/09 | Rockford IceHogs AHL Announcer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

| Links | About | Contact Guillaume Desbiens vs Ryan Flinn 12/6/09 Guillaume Desbiens vs Ryan Flinn. Manitoba Moose at Rockford icehogs. 12/6/09 Related Blogs on Ryan The American Spectator : Obama Accepts Paul Ryan's Premise Ryan Rising : Wigderson Library & Pub Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds for a Change Up « Movies, Reviews … Related Posts Getting to Know Left WIng Ryan Flinn…

shipley130| 3.12.10 @ 6:58PM

I assume there would be some way to check that people on medicaide are actually purchasing health insurance before getting an 11k tax credit. These people aren't repsonsible enough to mind their reproductive situation, much less be responsible enough to purchase insurance. I hope that doesn't turn into another F-W-A program that we have to hire more investigators to root out the problem. My main point is that government is not the answer.

Eldridge Cleaver| 3.12.10 @ 8:52PM

"These people aren't repsonsible enough to mind their reproductive situation, much less be responsible enough to purchase insurance"

What do you mean, "these people" sucka?

Pingback| 3.13.10 @ 4:36PM

Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » President, Pelosi Get Sober Advice links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…deficit neutral is a waste of time. First, we know that government running anything, especially on such a large scale, isn’t efficient. We got further proof of that this week through this American Spectator article , in which President Obama implicitly admits that: The White House says the increased audits could save taxpayers $2 billion over the next three years. That’s only a small fraction of…

Pingback| 3.13.10 @ 4:44PM

California Conservative » Blog Archive » President, Pelosi Get Sober Advice links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…deficit neutral is a waste of time. First, we know that government running anything, especially on such a large scale, isn’t efficient. We got further proof of that this week through this American Spectator article , in which President Obama implicitly admits that: The White House says the increased audits could save taxpayers $2 billion over the next three years. That’s only a small fraction of…

www.sunglass-mall.com | 4.5.10 @ 11:48PM

Specific ingredients: clothing, accessories, and shoes, but most recently handbags have become a cornerstone to the aura that is mainstream fashion www.handbagshunting.com

The American Spectator

The Obama Watch

Obama Accepts Paul Ryan’s Premise

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (358) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clare Shanahan| 3.11.10 @ 6:30AM

Deborah D | 3.11.10 @ 7:08AM

Charlie| 3.11.10 @ 10:51AM

TIna| 3.11.10 @ 11:59AM

Bob From District 9| 3.11.10 @ 6:35PM

Nay Darn| 3.11.10 @ 9:54PM

Elaine Suhre| 3.12.10 @ 12:45AM

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.10 @ 2:44PM

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:30PM

S Elliott| 3.14.10 @ 12:55AM

Ralph Novy| 3.15.10 @ 2:52AM

Everette| 3.11.10 @ 12:03PM

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:40PM

Jonathan| 3.11.10 @ 1:07PM

Sue| 3.11.10 @ 2:22PM

scott| 3.11.10 @ 7:29PM

darrel.howell| 3.11.10 @ 2:24PM

Clasina| 3.11.10 @ 5:21PM

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:35PM

klr56| 3.15.10 @ 10:28PM

Ned| 3.11.10 @ 2:08PM

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:38PM

John| 3.16.10 @ 2:02AM

Bob From District 9| 3.11.10 @ 6:39PM

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:32PM

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 2:34PM

Ralph Novy| 3.13.10 @ 12:18AM

John| 3.11.10 @ 4:28PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:28AM

Here's Your Sign| 3.12.10 @ 2:51PM

Sorry, Charlie--You're a Troll| 3.11.10 @ 7:21PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:29AM

Bet | 3.12.10 @ 1:56PM

Brian H| 3.13.10 @ 2:54AM

Honest C. | 3.11.10 @ 11:20AM

Lagius Meatius| 3.11.10 @ 12:21PM

Vernon Rosa| 3.11.10 @ 1:09PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:36AM

MikeBee| 3.11.10 @ 2:03PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:39AM

MTcasings| 3.11.10 @ 2:12PM

Eric Cartman| 3.11.10 @ 4:59PM

Got Education?| 3.12.10 @ 2:57PM

SCOTT| 3.11.10 @ 12:24PM

Ned| 3.11.10 @ 2:16PM

DanMingo| 3.11.10 @ 4:07PM

Befuddled| 3.11.10 @ 5:06PM

Ralph Novy| 3.12.10 @ 12:50PM

scott | 3.11.10 @ 7:49PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:43AM

Real American| 3.11.10 @ 2:02PM

darrel.howell| 3.11.10 @ 2:34PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:44AM

Mary S.| 3.11.10 @ 4:36PM

Joy| 3.13.10 @ 9:57PM

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 7:29AM

Lagius Meatius| 3.11.10 @ 12:34PM

You're an ass.| 3.11.10 @ 1:13PM

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 4:18PM

Tell It Like It IS?| 3.12.10 @ 3:03PM

Ted| 3.14.10 @ 1:12PM

Ted| 3.11.10 @ 4:22PM

John| 3.11.10 @ 4:30PM

JimE| 3.11.10 @ 5:49PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:32AM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:48AM

Eric Glassco| 3.11.10 @ 8:43AM

Alan Brooks| 3.11.10 @ 9:24AM

DukeD| 3.11.10 @ 9:31AM

scott | 3.11.10 @ 12:27PM

Vernon Rosa| 3.11.10 @ 1:18PM

Dr Al| 3.11.10 @ 4:24PM

scott| 3.11.10 @ 7:59PM

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 6:54AM

Tony C| 3.11.10 @ 10:41AM