Boehner: Popular Parts Of HCR Were GOP Ideas (AUDIO)

...and another thing, most of the support President Bush Sr for Catastrophic Coverage got was from Democratic party, not his own party (similar to Clinton's "Welfare Reform Act" being supported mostly by the GOP). I was watching it closely, hoping he could pull it off, but the mix of a few moderate Republicans and a bunch of Democrats was never quite enough to pass in Congress. I never knew what Byrd's problem was with it, maybe a personality clash (who knows), but he stripped off enough Democrats from the bill that it failed. The AARP thing was that they wanted a prescription drug benefit with it or no go. I felt that was stupid; "catastrophic" means catastrophic, like a $100,000 hospital bill that makes a person go into bankruptcy and destroys their family. If they wanted a prescription drug benefit, they should do it as another law; but it ended up another shouting match with no one the winner.

We will have to see who actually "lied". There are plenty of occasions where Obama HAS told some real WHOPPERS

Just imagine...
Obama denied selling our missiles to Iran.
Obama denied using that money to hire a secret army.
Obama denied that his secret army raped nuns.
I agree, Obama HAS told some real WHOPPERS;
just like our beloved Gipper.
I agree, that's pretty bad.

Nice dodge dipshit. You should get outta Dodge.
I reject you.

Keep telling yourself what you've got to hear. Being a george bush, neo-con, tea-bagging republican has got to be way to much to bear.
I have empathy for you.

i have a liberal slant to my beliefs, which is how i came to this site. but when i realized that i was not 'liberal enough' it was then that i knew this was a site for the crazies. i have seen hillary called a 'cunt' on these very pages, i have seen obama praised blindly, even after saying he didn't know all the facts but the police in cambridge acted stupidly. i come here now to chide and make fun of these crazies, but they take themselves very seriously, and look down on the rest of us. they have made me re-examine my own thoughts, and pushed me closer to the center then i have ever been. if i can see that they are nuts imagine what the rest of america thinks. november will be here soon, a reality check is headed their way, but even that won't do any good, they do not exist in reality, and when the american people reject obama in 2012, they will just say we are racists.

You do know that ObamaCare is not in effect yet, I presume?

In his post passage of ObamaCare stop in Iowa to drum up support for it, (where Obama mockingly said, "You turn on the news, you'll see the same folks are still shouting about how it's going to be the end of the world because this bill passed. .... Leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill 'Armageddon.' Armageddon! End of freedom as we know it! So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling. Some cracks opening up in the Earth! Turned out it was a nice day!")

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/03/obama_healthcare_law_no_armage.html

That article, then went on to report that Obama also nuked his own point (and apparently yours too) that the sky is not falling and it is still a "nice day": "In his speech, Obama sought to temper expectations. Healthcare costs won't drop right away, he said, reminding listeners that the PLAN WILL BE PHASED IN OVER FOUR YEARS."

Of course it is still a nice day....only a tiny part of the law has gone into effect yet. You will note that my reply was to suzdav's comment about her Medicare Advantage plan. According to Behind The Confusion Over Healthcare Reform and Medicare http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/behind-the-confusion-over-medicare-and-healthcare-reform-a229353#ixzz0me7pqClQ , "The next phase of changes to Medicare Advantage are scheduled to go into affect in 2011 but will only affect the private insurance companies that provide supplemental coverage and not the Medicare benefits themselves." According to the AARP Bulletin Today, March 25, 2010, cuts in subsidies to Medicare Advantage will start in 2012. (you will have to look it up yourself, I think 2 links are the maximum allowed in a comment here). In any case, it is not, as you suggest, a matter of "faith" that cuts in Medicare Advantage will occur, it is a matter of law and Democrats' hostility to almost anything in the private sector.

"What you don't seem to understand is what a budget or financial forecast is. Are you seriously arguing that because future conditions can (and almost always do) deviate from starting assumptions, the original forecasts and budget were flawed and we should therefore no longer rely on these financial tools?"

What I am saying (and you as well) is that the CBO "score" is a FORECAST and has about the same weight and utility as a weather forecast of what the weather will be on June 1st. The CBO score is certainly not a guarantee that what is projected in the bill WILL actually happen. It is simply a tool that says that IF the terms of the bill are carried out as written CBO's best estimate, based on that ASSUMPTION, is that the result will be "x". The result, obviously will not be "x" if the law is changed or economic conditions, unemployment, longevity, the number of doctors, medical breakthroughs, and a host of other variables change. CBO numbers have a limited usefulness as a rough starting point, that's all. Check back in a couple of years (certainly 10 years) to see how close the CBO numbers are. Want to bet they are within 10% of projections? It is more likely they will be off by more than 10% (probably MUCH more) and that ObamaCare, if it is not repealed, will join Social Security and Medicare as big drivers of an exploding national debt.

"The CBO has been the nonpartisan source of budget projections for more than 30 years. It's only when its findings are politically inconvenient for Republicans that their methods are called into question."

Show me a CBO projection for a major program that even comes close to accuracy over a 10 or 20 year period. I am willing to be educated.

"Anyway, the revenues start now, with the tax on the wealthy and some high end insurance plans. The government's liabilities don't begin until 2014, when the exchanges begin. Hence, 10 years of revenue, 6 years of expenses."

And that gimmick is supposed to support the claim that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit? It only "works" by matching 10 years of revenue to 6 years of expenses. What happens when 10 years of revenue are matched with 10 years of expenses?

"And again, Medicare benefits are not being cut."

What was all that talk about "savings" of $500 billion from Medicare to "fund" ObamaCare? (Those "savings" should have been used to bail out Medicare, which is already running an operating deficit (current expenses exceed current Medicare taxes). Do you think that you can make those cuts and they won't affect benefits?

"In fact, they're being expanded, with the infamous donut hole finally being closed."

THAT is the problem with all liberal entitlements (and with ObamaCare in the future): some "gap" in benefits always serves as a reason for more liberal "compassion" that expands costs. It is "great" that the infamous doughnut hole is being closed, but where did the idea come from that seniors should not have to pay ANYTHING for their prescriptions? Especially when some (many?) seniors could afford to cover the donut hole from their own resources.

"I took the time (and space) to answer all of your arguments. Please have the courtesy of doing the same."

I did as you requested.

"The US is NOT going socialist, communist nor Maoist or any of the other extremist things you fear!"

Many say Obama is not a socialist. Maybe not, but consider this:

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot.

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform.

The Socialist Party USA called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama said, "I will end this war," without a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. Many of Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of them are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

Also, in 2007, the National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal Senator—even more liberal that admitted socialist, Bernie Sanders. More liberal than Sanders? Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

Maybe Obama is a NOT a socialist, but what would he being doing differently if he were a socialist?

The stimulus bill was more of a policy bill in its conception. You know, since it's probably good public policy to prevent the 2nd Great Depression. It just happened to entail a lot of public spending (which virtually every economist argued for). It was a unique, one-time thing. It wasn't the big Frankenstein that appropriations bills are.

And I'll bet you that the Democrats were at least consistent in their opposition to Republican appropriations. "I'm against 80% of this bill, but it's going to pass anyway so I'll try to at least get something for my district." "Hey, that was a crap bill that passed, but at least I got us a new sewage treatment plant."

In six months, Boehner will be taking credit for ALL of the popular parts of the bill, even though no Republican voted for it and, according to him, it will bring about islamofascist socialist Armageddon.

Let's just agree to disagree. To you, where to put Nazism on some scale may be an "empirical fact", but it is really a matter of judgment and perspective.

That would be like agreeing to disagree about whether 2+2=4. It's not "some scale". It's the classic, traditional scale of left vs. right. That's the scale that Glenn Beck is trying to coopt.

Those on the left (where you get most or all of your information) will classify Nazism as "far right".

As I've mentioned many, many times now, I get my information from basic history textbooks and general knowledge. I've been begging you this whole time to read one for yourself.

The rest of what you wrote is way off topic. I shouldn't even engage any of it. But I can't resist.

"you can continue to view Nazism as the "inevitable" and "desirable" destination of conservatism if you wish."

And again, you're putting words in my mouth. This is called a "straw man attack"; you claim your opponent has said something he hasn't, then argue against that phantom statement. To say that conservatives ultimately desire to become Nazis is absurd, and I never said it.

On your final question "if not fascism, you would place on the far right of the political scale." I have answered that---it would be anarchy.

Again, anarchy is on the far left of the traditional scale. Why? Because freedom and liberty are on the left and authority is on the right. Here's that link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum You can see anarchy on the far left, as sort of a mirror image to communism (the economic system).

I have thought about your question earlier today (you do inspire thought), and in the REAL WORLD, I would say that on the far right of the political scale I would put the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the founding "parents" of the country. They recognized that in a world of flawed humans, government was and is necessary, but that power has to be divided and limited. Anything farther to the right of that is a perversion of conservative and "right wing" values or a utopian fantasy.

Where would YOU put the founding parents on your scale and what do you think THEY would think of the expanded and expanding scope of the federal government as it now exists?

Sigh. Again, it's not "my" scale. It's the standard scale that everyone (except Glenn Beck and his blind followers) accepts.

Now, you're asking where I would put a group of 18th century, wealthy, landed, slaveowning white men on the standard scale in a modern context? I really couldn't say. They defended slavery and denied women the franchise, yet they revolted against a monarchy and established a democracy. It's also a fallacy to group them all in one lump. For example, Hamilton would probably feel right at home allowing Goldman Sachs to do whatever it wanted. But Jefferson would likely be a socialist.

If you think they would be cool with the current federal goverment, what in the early HISTORY of the U.S. supports the view that Presidents and Congresses thought they had either the power or a mandate to regulate and control as much of citizens' lives as the federal government now does?

Well, what do you know about our early history? Do you know anything about the Articles of Confederation? How about the Alien & Sedition Acts, or the Whiskey Rebellion? I'm sure if you read up on them, you'll have a better understanding of the perspectives of the founding fathers.

If George Washington were to return to run for President today, I dare say he would be demonized as an "extreme right winger". Where I am going wrong?

What specific policies do you think Washington would support? And I don't mean platitudes like "more liberty" or "less government". I mean, would he be for or against school prayer? Would he be for Medicare? Would he be for intervention in foreign wars?

All of this crap about anarchy and the founding fathers is irrelevant to the question we're trying to settle: is fascism traditionally categorized as "left wing" or "right wing"? It's been nearly 2 weeks since we started this. Have you not found the time to go to your local library or bookstore to look it up for yourself?

I want to get back to why you believe that fascism is left wing. It's because Glenn Beck said it is. And Glenn Beck said it only so he could smear the left with the brush of fascism. "Liberals are on the 'left', and fascists are on the 'left'; therefore, liberals are fascist Nazi-lovers and the enemy of all goodness in the world." It's disinformation that dehumanizes and demonizes his political opponents. Let me ask you. Do you really think that people who are working for a minimum social safety net, protections for our workers and children, and to curb the excesses of out-of-control corporations are actually authoritarian monsters who want to lock you up in FEMA camps so Obama can rule the world? Because that's what Beck wants you to think.