Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Now Obama's Lackey
AnAmericanCitizen
Friday on Fox, Announcer Carl Cameron: "But a comprehensive analysis by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not yet being done for lack of detailed
'legislative language to study' from the Senate Finance Committee. Instead the
Democrats have provided the CBO only with 'conceptual language without in-depth
specifics' so the non-partisan analysts are doing only a preliminary report."
And that is what they are going into the new week with at the time of the vote on the
latest Senate bill. So when you hear the $829 Billion figure, take it with a grain
of salt.....keeping in mind this is a PRELIMINARY figure. Those who are looking at
more specifics say the true bill would more likely amount to $1-1/2 Trillion,
possibly more.
More lies, more fudging. Wish we'd been privy to more of the conversation between
Obama and the head of the CBO when he was called to the White House the last time the
CBO came out with a figure that made the president unhappy. That might explain a
lot.....AAC
DICK MORRIS: "I think that history could be about to repeat itself. It's astonishing
to me, that this is a bill that is disliked by a 20-point margin by the American
people, and yet the Democrats are blithely going ahead and they're going to pass it.
This bill doesn't do what it's supposed to do. They said they're going to cover the
uninsured, but half of the uninsured will remain uninsured under this bill, and I
frankly think it'll be more.
What able-bodied young person in their 20s or early 30 in their right mind is going
to want to buy a comprehensive, complete health insurance program that consumes 8
percent of their income, which is the amount you have to pay before the subsidy kicks
bill. You'd be breaking the law if you just get a catastrophic policy. You need a
soup-to-nuts policy because they need to take the premiums from you and use it to pay
for the cost of this bill. And if you don't do it, you get fined a thousand dollars.
Well, I think the average person is just going to pay the fine. Why would you pay
$4,000 or $5,000 in premiums for a policy you don't need?
And by the way, the other thing is, you know when this bill takes effect? In 2013.
You know when Obama has to run for reelection? In 2012. He'll be safely in the White
House when the shortages hit, the waiting lists kick in, doctors start being told,
No, you can't administer this chemotherapy, No, you can't let this person have a hip
replacement, all the stuff we talk about in "Catastrophe."
It'll kick in after Obama's elected."
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: "I believe everybody up there, Democrat, Republicans, wants to
fix it and wants to do the right thing. But for the life of me, is that I cannot
think how they can possibly justify not putting it on the Internet or how they can
possible vote for something that they are uninformed about because they haven't read
it." (Or debated on the floor?..AAC)
Wildbilly
AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
American health care is already FUBAR. No matter what they do, they
can't make it any worse. The only thing that will solve the problem is
Medicare for everybody.
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara
http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
Jerry Okamura
"Wildbilly" <wldbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message
news:wldbilly-901DE6...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <41e2d5to52evd8cea...@4ax.com>,
> AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> American health care is already FUBAR. No matter what they do, they
> can't make it any worse. The only thing that will solve the problem is
> Medicare for everybody.
How will that solve the problem?
Billy
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Instead of a 30% to 50% overhead, there will only be a 6% overhead.
The rest of the civilized world does it. I think we can too.
Jerry Okamura
"Billy" <wldbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message
news:wldbilly-A8B6D6...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <BF2Bm.3998$cL1....@newsfe20.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wildbilly" <wldbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message
>> news:wldbilly-901DE6...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> > In article <41e2d5to52evd8cea...@4ax.com>,
>> > AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > American health care is already FUBAR. No matter what they do, they
>> > can't make it any worse. The only thing that will solve the problem is
>> > Medicare for everybody.
>>
>> How will that solve the problem?
>
> Instead of a 30% to 50% overhead, there will only be a 6% overhead.
> The rest of the civilized world does it. I think we can too.
"Overhead" is what is referred to as a fixed cost. You can reduce your
fixed cost to zero, and you will not solve the cost problem. And once you
achieve that goal, you cannot reduce that cost any further. But that is not
why we have a cost problem with healthcare. It is not the fixed cost that
is the problem, it is the variable cost that is the reason we have a cost
problem with healthcare. And it is medical inflation which is running at 8%
or higher per year, that will insure that the variable component of the cost
of healthcare, will continue to rise. And since neither democrats or
republicans have any solution to solving the problem caused by medical
inflation, medical inflation will insure that cost will continue to rise.
And since the democrats are pushing for everyone to have health inusrance
and since medical inflation will contiue to be at or above 8% per year, that
also means that the cost of the insurnce will also rise by at least that
percentage each and every year. And when that increase is more than a
persons take home pay is increasing, that means a greater percentage of
their income is going to be to pay for that insurance. Besides, it is
simple hypocrisy to say that a woman should have the "choice" to have a
child, and then turn right around and say that everyone else should not have
a "choice" not to spend money on health insruance, or to penalize some
people who have a better health insurance policy.
Al Khemyst
to get scared democrats re-elected. Those standing the most chance of
losing their 60 seat majority..... They want to avoid what happened to
Clinton when he was emasculated 2 years into his term, and Newt's "Contract
with America" got a Republican majority to offset the liberal agenda.
"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41e2d5to52evd8cea...@4ax.com...
AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:38:21 -0700, "Al Khemyst" <an...@onandon.com> wrote:
>MOrris brings up a good point regarding TARP II- its nothing but pure pork
>to get scared democrats re-elected. Those standing the most chance of
>losing their 60 seat majority..... They want to avoid what happened to
>Clinton when he was emasculated 2 years into his term, and Newt's "Contract
>with America" got a Republican majority to offset the liberal agenda.
>
You so right. Just think what dishonest politicians we now have in Washington. They
force billions of dollars debt down the taxpayers' throats calling it a stimulus for
the economy....while they are sitting on most of it to use to buy another election
next November to keep people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in office. When we go
to the polls next November we should remember we'll get who we deserve (again) before
we pull that lever....AAC
STEVE WYNN: Soaring rhetoric and great speeches with or without a teleprompter
aren't going to change the truth, and the truth is: The biggest enemy, the biggest
obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending.
Obama has destroyed the middle class....Rush
Billy
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I'm with you up to this point, and so is the 30% savings from the blood
sucking insurance companies, but then you mix "choice" about one's own
body, and being force to spend money on enrolling with the blood suckers
for health insurance.
The first is who has control over your body, and the second one is
extortion.
The insurance should be Medicare for everyone paid for with our taxes,
and then, if you wanted more, you could buy supplemental coverage from
the blood suckers.
So, maybe health care should be nationalized, and then the government
could set the wages of the doctors, and the costs of procedures.
> Besides, it is
> simple hypocrisy to say that a woman should have the "choice" to have a
> child, and then turn right around and say that everyone else should not have
> a "choice" not to spend money on health insruance, or to penalize some
> people who have a better health insurance policy.
AnAmericanCitizen
Government has run Medicare into the ground and the program is going bankrupt....AAC
Bush would never dream about apologizing for America�s record in fighting
wars of liberation on behalf of Muslims; Obama has made groveling before the
�Muslim World� into an art form. Bush found the very best generals to turn
around a losing war, putting the political standing of his own party and
presidency in jeopardy. Obama is struggling to marginalize his generals and
protect his own electoral fortunes. Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
Evil.� Obama can�t manage to use the word �evil,� unless he is talking
about insurance companies....Jennifer Rubin
Jerry Okamura
Wrong target. It won't matter. The cost of health insurance will rise due
to medical inflation. With medical inflation running at or above 8% per
year, the cost of that insurance, whoever sells it, will increase by at
least that same amount. That means that about every eight years, the cost
of the insurance will double, and it will double again in another either
years or so.
>
> The first is who has control over your body, and the second one is
> extortion.
You have control over your own body, when you are the one paying the bill.
Someone else owns your body, if they are the ones paying the bill.
>
> The insurance should be Medicare for everyone paid for with our taxes,
> and then, if you wanted more, you could buy supplemental coverage from
> the blood suckers.
>
It is not sustainable. Medical inflation will insure that the total cost
will rise.
> So, maybe health care should be nationalized, and then the government
> could set the wages of the doctors, and the costs of procedures.
If freedom is not important, then you should support such a concept. If
freedom is important, you should not support such a concept.
clams_casino
> Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
> Evil.
>
But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
strengthen in numbers.
You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
Billy
AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wars of liberation? What alternate reality are you from? Bush bluntly
attacked for oil and to send profits to the stock holders of weapons
manufactures. There were no weapons of mass destruction. These was no
link with al-queda. They were lies. Get it?
The "surge' worked because we paid off the Iraqi militias long enough to
settle things down, so that we could get out of town, end of story.
AnAmericanCitizen
wrote:
>AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>
>> Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
>> Evil.
>>
>
>But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
>used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
>strengthen in numbers.
>
>You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
>
>
Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would have corrected
itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery. Yes, we would still
have had the TARP but I'm not so sure about the stimulus.....you know the one Obama
has used mainly to pay off his political supporters such as the unions while holding
back on the majority of funds for who knows what....more payoffs? To use taxpayer
funds to buy the elections for the democrats in 2010 and 2012? In addition, Iraq
wouldn't be turning back into a quagmire and Afghanastan would be in the hands of
competent career military men who know what they're doing not beholden to the whims
of somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.
BO has taken and is continuing to take the country into a much more pitiful condition
than any other president. Jimmy Carter should be very happy. He's moving up from
worst to next to last worst.....AAC
clams_casino
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:04:41 -0500, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
>>>Evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
>>used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
>>strengthen in numbers.
>>
>>You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would have corrected
>itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery.
>
>
GW had eight years where his end result was to wreck a vibrant economy,
devastate relations around the world and drag the US military into his
personal pissing contest with Saddam, all the while essentially
providing the 9/11 terrorists with a free ride to build forces & gain
strength. One could only imaging how much worse it would be with another
four. With his record, is there any doubt that it wouldn't continue to
worsen all accounts?
> Jimmy Carter should be very happy. He's moving up from
>worst to next to last worst.....AAC
>
>
So you now admit that GW is way behind Carter?
Billy
AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:04:41 -0500, clams_casino
> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
> >
> >> Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
> >> Evil.
> >>
> >
> >But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
> >used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
> >strengthen in numbers.
> >
> >You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
> >
> >
> Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would have
> corrected
> itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery.
You smokin' crack, boy. That's crazy talk. Who the hell do you think dug
this hole? Bush, that's who.
> Yes, we would
> still
> have had the TARP but I'm not so sure about the stimulus.....you know the
> one Obama
> has used mainly to pay off his political supporters such as the unions while
> holding
> back on the majority of funds for who knows what....more payoffs? To use
> taxpayer
> funds to buy the elections for the democrats in 2010 and 2012? In addition,
> Iraq
> wouldn't be turning back into a quagmire and Afghanastan would be in the
> hands of
> competent career military men who know what they're doing not beholden to the
> whims
> of somebody who obviously doesn't know what he's doing.
>
> BO has taken and is continuing to take the country into a much more pitiful
> condition
> than any other president. Jimmy Carter should be very happy. He's moving up
> from
> worst to next to last worst.....AAC
AnAmericanCitizen
wrote:
>AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:04:41 -0500, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
>>>>Evil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
>>>used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
>>>strengthen in numbers.
>>>
>>>You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would have corrected
>>itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery.
>>
>>
>
>GW had eight years where his end result was to wreck a vibrant economy,
>devastate relations around the world and drag the US military into his
>personal pissing contest with Saddam, all the while essentially
>providing the 9/11 terrorists with a free ride to build forces & gain
>strength. One could only imaging how much worse it would be with another
>four. With his record, is there any doubt that it wouldn't continue to
>worsen all accounts?
>
We had a robust economy until the democrats took over the Congress in 2006. Yup, GW
is looking better every day....AAC
It's the Military, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the
Press. It's the Military, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of
Speech. It's the Military, not the politicians that ensures our right to
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Military who salutes
The flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by
The flag.
If you care to offer the smallest token of recognition and appreciation for
The Military, please pass this on and pray for our men and women who have
Served and are currently serving our country and pray for those who
Have given the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
God Bless the military.
AnAmericanCitizen
>In article <maa7f55eh0dqes5ir...@4ax.com>,
> AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:04:41 -0500, clams_casino
>> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
>> >> Evil.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
>> >used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
>> >strengthen in numbers.
>> >
>> >You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
>> >
>> >
>> Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would have
>> corrected
>> itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery.
>
>You smokin' crack, boy. That's crazy talk. Who the hell do you think dug
>this hole? Bush, that's who.
You probably don't know this, posting from Australia, but this country had a robust
economy until 2006 when the Democrats took over the House.....AAC
Sid9
You understand nothing of the consequences of Reagan's, HW Bush, and
bush,jr, the incompetent's economic policies.
Clinton handed bush,jr a nation at peace.
Clinton handed bush,jr a nation respected world wide.
Clinton handed bush,jr a nation economically sound.
Clinton handed bush,jr a nation with full employment.
Just look at what bush,jr left for Obama to clean up....a mess of
historic proportion!
clams_casino
>>
>>
>>
>We had a robust economy until the democrats took over the Congress in 2006. Yup, GW
>is looking better every day....AAC
>
>
>
Now that's funny. You do have a sense of humor after all.
Billy
AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:43:37 -0800, Billy <wldbilly@without_a.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <maa7f55eh0dqes5ir...@4ax.com>,
> > AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:04:41 -0500, clams_casino
> >> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Bush bluntly attacked the �Axis of
> >> >> Evil.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >But did did essentially nothing to avenge the 9/11 incident. He simply
> >> >used that event to invade Iraq, allowing the terrorists to run free and
> >> >strengthen in numbers.
> >> >
> >> >You have to admit, GW left the US in pitiful condition.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Perhaps, however, if GW was still president, the country/economy would
> >> have
> >> corrected
> >> itself by now or at least been well on the road to recovery.
> >
> >You smokin' crack, boy. That's crazy talk. Who the hell do you think dug
> >this hole? Bush, that's who.
>
> You probably don't know this, posting from Australia, but this country had a
> robust
> economy until 2006 when the Democrats took over the House.....AAC
The illusion of a robust economy, maybe but ol' George was working on
that. Remember the housing bubble?
"To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I
want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments.
A lot of folks can�t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They
may desire to buy a home, but they don�t have the money to make a down
payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are
desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is
the hurdle that they can�t cross. And one way to address that is to have
the federal government participate."
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/24/2002-bushs-speech-to-the-white-
house-conference-on-increasing-minority-homeownership/
Still haven't googled sonic.net yet, huh? Your glow of stupidity really
isn't all that attractive.
Billy
AnAmericanCitizen <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It's the War Criminals that sent them to Afghanistan and Iraq, who
should be behind bars.
AnAmericanCitizen
wrote:
What's funny about the econony tanking even if it was after the democrats came to
power?....AAC
clams_casino
Hmm - Are you really suggesting that the economy was robust under GW?
You were being serious? Hmm......