Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Dont forget the military! You mean the same military the constitution says the federal government is supposed to provide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) You mean the same military the constitution says the federal government is supposed to provide? Please TRY to stay on track. Driveby was being critical of every function provided by the gubmnet and was cherry picking examples. The military is either as incompetent as those agencies or the fed gubmnet does something very right. If the military is competent, then there is a chance that the health care reform could also be competent, something that wont be fairly evaluated for years (kinda like draft grades for NFL teams). If the gubmnet cant do anything right, then you are saying our troops and military is a big waste of time and resources, just like the US mail . . . Constitutionality was put to bed about this already . . get over it. The census is also in the constitution . . . Edited May 12, 2010 by bpwallace49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Wow, it's facing cost overruns only two months after passage, think about 20 years down the road... But hey, the obamessiah do be dun got us dat helf care dat gonna reduce-um dat defy-ceet and, and, and... HOPENCHANGE, PEOPLE! Just like the minimum wage actually costs people their jobs, this is going to cost people their coverage. Along with their lives and liberty. Man, I wonder if medical assistants will now be as surly and unhelpful as the folks at the post office or dmv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I hope I have some change left after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Please TRY to stay on track. Driveby was being critical of every function provided by the gubmnet and was cherry picking examples. The military is either as incompetent as those agencies or the fed gubmnet does something very right. If the military is competent, then there is a chance that the health care reform could also be competent, something that wont be fairly evaluated for years (kinda like draft grades for NFL teams). If the gubmnet cant do anything right, then you are saying our troops and military is a big waste of time and resources, just like the US mail . . . Constitutionality was put to bed about this already . . get over it. The census is also in the constitution . . . In many cases the military is inefficient and incompetent, but I think you feel better with the government controlling our military than you would a private army. I'm just fine with UPS and FedEx delivering that mail. I have no problem with the census wanting to count me, I do have a slight problem with the other information they want to know, but frankly the same info is available to them through the IRS (another reason to get rid of the income tax). I think the constitutionality of portions of the health care bill will be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Wow, it's facing cost overruns only two months after passage, think about 20 years down the road... But hey, the obamessiah do be dun got us dat helf care dat gonna reduce-um dat defy-ceet and, and, and... HOPENCHANGE, PEOPLE! Just like the minimum wage actually costs people their jobs, this is going to cost people their coverage. Along with their lives and liberty. Man, I wonder if medical assistants will now be as surly and unhelpful as the folks at the post office or dmv? How come you believed the CBO projections after you didn't believe them and now you believe them again. Worshiping Ayn Rand is complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 How come you believed the CBO projections after you didn't believe them and now you believe them again. Worshiping Ayn Rand is complicated. Everything's complicated for one with a Gump-esque mind such as yourself. As Az already indicated, the CBO must use the data it's provided. It's not allowed to call bullsh!t on a bogus assumption (like the $500BB medicare cuts). Let's say for a second that EVERYONE opposed to obamacare has been a hyppocrite. Just for argument's sake, let's agree on that. How 'bout you answer the question, princess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 This CBO flip flops more than John Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 My over riding complaint about this whole bill is the costs and the fact that the costs will not be as was initially portrayed. We hear about all of the savings that will bereaped through this new program, but it is turning out to be a farce even before the plan is fully implemented. The current admin and congress were not forthright in their statements regarding this legislation and it is becoming evident that this program, in reality, may end up costing us more than the current system under which we operate. My opinion is that this program will certainly cost much more than the estimates we are seeing today, thus, costing the American taxpayer even more in the future than is currently on the table. Government is notroriously inefficient, government project consistantly run over budget, in many cases by very large percentages. Quite frankly I don't see this as being any different, further, I don't think that they are even yet being fully honest with us about the costs that are included or attached to this legislation. Much like the previous admin, this admin has started out lying to the public and we still don't know the full costs of that lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Everything's complicated for one with a Gump-esque mind such as yourself. As Az already indicated, the CBO must use the data it's provided. It's not allowed to call bullsh!t on a bogus assumption (like the $500BB medicare cuts). Let's say for a second that EVERYONE opposed to obamacare has been a hyppocrite. Just for argument's sake, let's agree on that. How 'bout you answer the question, princess? Oh, what you're really saying is that your assertion that the CBO's numbers can't be trusted are based on newly released CBO numbers that your are taking for Gospel. Got it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said in response that the health care law "will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it. If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The President has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen." Baer also pointed a reporter to comments made by OMB director Peter Orszag on his blog in March in which the budget director says that Congress has the power to pay for the $115 billion costs with cuts elsewhere, or not act on those budget authorizations in the bill at all Source: ABC News Since Orszag was blogging about these additional costs back in March, Tuesday's announcement doesn't sound like a big surprise. I don't have a problem with the additional spending to implement the program if it is cut from somewhere else. I also just keep hearing about the 10 year projection. What about the 20 year projection? I heard somewhere that the savings was supposed to be 1.3 Trillion over 20 years. Is that still the projection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 My over riding complaint about this whole bill is the costs and the fact that the costs will not be as was initially portrayed. We hear about all of the savings that will bereaped through this new program, but it is turning out to be a farce even before the plan is fully implemented. The current admin and congress were not forthright in their statements regarding this legislation and it is becoming evident that this program, in reality, may end up costing us more than the current system under which we operate. My opinion is that this program will certainly cost much more than the estimates we are seeing today, thus, costing the American taxpayer even more in the future than is currently on the table. Government is notroriously inefficient, government project consistantly run over budget, in many cases by very large percentages. Quite frankly I don't see this as being any different, further, I don't think that they are even yet being fully honest with us about the costs that are included or attached to this legislation. Much like the previous admin, this admin has started out lying to the public and we still don't know the full costs of that lie. It is so refreshing to see a conservative opposition that actually is articulated in a logical way. Great post! That is the heart of the entire matter and very accurate, IMO. I think that they are being honest with the costs, because any assumption of some of these costs is nothing more than a wild-assed guess. Every savings or over-run is supposedly balanced by some other cut or addition that HAS to happen for the entire costs to be perfectly balanced out. I just dont think any of those financial gymnastics are very likely to happen . . which means the entire cost structure has to be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) It is so refreshing to see a conservative opposition that actually is articulated in a logical way. Great post! That is the heart of the entire matter and very accurate, IMO. I think that they are being honest with the costs, because any assumption of some of these costs is nothing more than a wild-assed guess. Every savings or over-run is supposedly balanced by some other cut or addition that HAS to happen for the entire costs to be perfectly balanced out. I just dont think any of those financial gymnastics are very likely to happen . . which means the entire cost structure has to be questioned. We're still waiting for you lefties to post one, though. It's been 13 years now so do you think you can maybe squeek ONE out? Edited May 12, 2010 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 We're still waiting for you lefties to post one, though. It's been 13 years now so do you think you can maybe squeek ONE out? Tossberg . . you are hilarious. Seizing on other people's posts, yet contributing nothing as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Tossberg . . you are hilarious. Seizing on other people's posts, yet contributing nothing as usual. Funny how you insult conservatives in your previous post yet call me out. Way to a real "contributor" to this thread. You're about as clever as a box of rocks - but I bet you and all of your liberal buddies think your the cat's butt. Edited May 12, 2010 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Funny how you insult conservatives in your previous post yet call me out. You're about as clever as a box of rocks - but I bet you and all of your liberal buddies think your the cat's butt. Seriously . . . you didnt read past the first sentence, did you? All too many of these posts are "obamessiah" and idiotic posts by you attacking those damn lefty libs. That is obvious by your last two posts. It wasnt attacking conservatives at all (but feel free to keep up the victimization angle . . it is working wonders for you ) SEC wrote a very clear, non combative, very intelligent response that left out politics and questioned the policy. You should really try and learn something from his posts . . . If you DID read the paragraph I wrote earlier, you would see that i was agreeing with him. But your blinding ignorance and obsession with placing people into your preconceived labels can be distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Seriously . . . you didnt read past the first sentence, did you? All too many of these posts are "obamessiah" and idiotic posts by you attacking those damn lefty libs. That is obvious by your last two posts. It wasnt attacking conservatives at all (but feel free to keep up the victimization angle . . it is working wonders for you ) SEC wrote a very clear, non combative, very intelligent response that left out politics and questioned the policy. You should really try and learn something from his posts . . . If you DID read the paragraph I wrote earlier, you would see that i was agreeing with him. But your blinding ignorance and obsession with placing people into your preconceived labels can be distracting. Why do you spend time to putting forth a serious response to toolberg? Just think caddyman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Seriously . . . you didnt read past the first sentence, did you? All too many of these posts are "obamessiah" and idiotic posts by you attacking those damn lefty libs. That is obvious by your last two posts. It wasnt attacking conservatives at all (but feel free to keep up the victimization angle . . it is working wonders for you ) SEC wrote a very clear, non combative, very intelligent response that left out politics and questioned the policy. You should really try and learn something from his posts . . . If you DID read the paragraph I wrote earlier, you would see that i was agreeing with him. But your blinding ignorance and obsession with placing people into your preconceived labels can be distracting. You just go ahead and believe that nonsense. You agreed with him by taking a jab at conservatives at the same time? And you don't even realize it. Classic. If you went after lefties with the same zeal then I would consider what you have to say. However, you clearly are full of yourself and biased to the nth degree. Keep it up, though. It just wouldn't be the same if you weren't. Edited May 12, 2010 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) Why do you spend time to putting forth a serious response to toolberg? Just think caddyman. This coming from the master tool himself. Your leader BP controls you very well. I'm sure evil_gop_liars will be posting here shortly. The 3 Stooges back together again. Edited May 12, 2010 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Why do you spend time to putting forth a serious response to toolberg? Just think caddyman. Very true. The dumb is strong with Toolberg . . . .the guy hasnt made a post with any substance . . ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Oh, what you're really saying is that your assertion that the CBO's numbers can't be trusted are based on newly released CBO numbers that your are taking for Gospel. Got it.. so hold on a second, bushwanker....several months ago, some people were saying that the CBO score the democrats are touting is bogus, because the bill disingenuously leaves off a whole bunch of implicit discretionary spending and assumes a bunch of totally unrealistic cuts in medicare. a few months later, the CBO comes out and says, "yeah, that bill you sent us is probably going to cost a whole lot more than our original report said, because you disingenuously forced us to leave off a bunch of implicit discretionary spending." and YOU are trying to spin this as some sort of vindication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 and YOU are trying to spin this as some sort of vindication? No, you are a tad bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 No, you are a tad bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 so hold on a second, bushwanker....several months ago, some people were saying that the CBO score the democrats are touting is bogus, because the bill disingenuously leaves off a whole bunch of implicit discretionary spending and assumes a bunch of totally unrealistic cuts in medicare. a few months later, the CBO comes out and says, "yeah, that bill you sent us is probably going to cost a whole lot more than our original report said, because you disingenuously forced us to leave off a bunch of implicit discretionary spending." and YOU are trying to spin this as some sort of vindication? Poor pudwhacker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Yea boss, yea boss, good job boss!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts