Instead of silly comments about punctuation, tell me why you think this bill represents sound fiscal policy. Or better yet, why you don't think it will aggravate an already dire situation caused by runaway spending on entitlement programs. You probably won't; it's generally not a discussion that liberals want to get into.
But that's OK. At the same time that team Obama is layering in their version of HCR----which is based on some very dubious accounting and gimmickry----they're creating a deficit commission to figure out how we got into such a mess with excessive entitlement spending. Only in today's Democratic Party would that scenario not be considered a little surreal. But hey, when in doubt, create a commission of "experts"......that's what I call heavy lifting.
They score the bill that's put in front of them. If they get a bill that contains 10 years of tax revenues/Medicare cuts and only 6 years of benefits, that's what their estimate will score. But that doesn't make the bill fiscally sound.
You also don't understand GAAP, so you shouldn't be trying to discuss fiscal or budgetary issues. Your grasp of basic accounting principles is apparently as feeble as your understanding of poll numbers.
While the goal of providing health insurance for all is laudable, that doesn't mean that the proposed "health care reform" is good policy. Centrists and conservatives alike have pointed out that it basically relies on trickery and gimmicks in an effort to let Obama claim that it is "deficit neutral". In so doing, he's engaged in a number of lies:
Obama lie #1: the plan reduces the deficit. NO, IT DOESN'T.
When you strip out the double-counting of Social Security revenues and other gimmicks, the full 10-yr. cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-yr. cost has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
Obama lie #2: it's a plan which is paid for. NO,IT ISN'T.
The bill has 10 years of various tax increases and Medicare cuts (amounting to half a trillion dollars), i.e., revenues, to pay for six years of spending and benefits. That right, folks....the taxes would start next year, with any so-called benefits not starting for another four years. When you compare 10 years of revenues with 6 years of expenses, the results will look good on paper, trust me.
In the private sector, that's called "Enron Accounting", and people went to jail for it.
Obama Lie #3: "It will bring down the cost of health care for millions of Americans" NO, IT WON'T.
This one is my favorite, folks. The "doc fix"---restoring cuts in Medicare reimbursements for doctors---cost $371 billion. And this made the CBO score for Obamacare look bad. SO, Obama and his clown show took it out and put it in separate, stand-alone legislation. Ignoring costs like this doesn't remove them from the backs of taxpayers.
See folks, HIDING costs doesn't REDUCE costs. And that's the fundamental dishonesty that makes Obamacare stink to the high heavens.
Maybe the most dishonest element in this entire calamity is the way Obama treats the new 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans. See, it won't kick in until 2018, six years after Obama has been thrown out. But that's OK, Barack, just kick the can down the road and let the next President deal with it. Nothing like "hope and change", and a new style of politics.
Obama is a liar and the biggest crook to inhabit the White House since Nixon. Fortunately, the voters are now on to him and his clown show.
Well "Vecky", you haven't been following the poll numbers if you really believe there's been no erosion in support....but then again, you often seem to make up your own numbers. Since team Obama first unveiled their thoughts last summer, public opposition to HCR has steadily increased---due in large part to Barack's ineptitude and inability to communicate.
As to Obama being informed by an aide of what the real numbers are, Linda Douglass admitted as much in an interview with Megyn Kelly. I suspect that Obama was just going to sit on the numbers, hoping that the subject wouldn't come up again.
Jon Kyl later read the actual letter from the CBO's Doug Elmendorf, which affirmed that premiums would rise between 10-13%, for the same policy under the Senate bill. Obama tried to bullshit his way out of it as usual, with some garbage about how Kyl was comparing apples and oranges, i.e., different policies. But that was not the thrust of Mr. Elmendorf's letter.
The only smack down came when Obama challenged Lamar Alexander's claim that individual premiums would rise under the proposed health care plan. Alexander promised that he would provide proof of his assertion before the day was out.
He didn't have to. An hour later, an aide handed Obama a slip of paper, verifying that CBO estimates do indeed project a premium increase of 10-13% for individuals, under the plan. Obama clumsily corrected himself a few minutes later.
As to Obama "resurrecting" health care reform, he wouldn't have to if he hadn't run it into a ditch in the first place.
"It was used to give cover to some party members for difficult votes....."
Difficult votes? Well, welcome to the NFL. Those of us who work in the private sector (i.e.,, real world) usually have to do something "difficult" every week. It may be terminating someone, it may be giving a staff member who isn't performing an unfavorable review. Or it may be telling the CEO that you don't agree with one of his proposals.
This idea in government that you get to dodge the difficult things in life is one (of many) reason that government is so ineffective and dysfunctional. In the real world, you have to stand up and be counted.
Then--Senator Clinton warned us about Obama during the 2008 primary campaign. As an Illinois State Senator, he voted "present" 130 times......that's not the kind of guy who can be expected to show conviction when the going gets tough.
Whenever he couldn't get Tip O'Neill to say uncle, President Reagan employed one of his most successful strategies: going over the head of Congress, directly to the American people. President Reagan was an extremely gifted communicator, but so is Obama, right?
The only problem with employing such a strategy occurs when the people don't want the policy change that the President is advocating. Then of course, using the strategy would essentially be pointless.
You've obviously read precious little about politics, business, and economics....and your understanding of American history is feeble, at best.
So you shouldn't be here attempting to appear educated, trying to banter insults with people who obviously know more than you do. Because if you were so bright, JJ, you wouldn't have jumped aboard the Obama bandwagon last year. I told you then that he would ultimately fold like the $2 suitcase that he is. And look where he is today; failing miserably. Begging for help from the Republicans this Thursday, like a blind man selling pencils on a street corner.
So take it from the Gipper---a real President, and an authentic leader:
Sometimes, it seems that the name "JJ" really does suit you....
The word "leadership" is what connects my commentaries with Charles' diary. Just yesterday, I wrote the following:
"Well guess what? Filibusters and special interests have been around a long time---deal with it. Working with Congressional leaders of both parties in 1986 (Tip O'Neill, Bill Bradley, Bob Packwood, Dan Rostenkowski, Dick Gephardt), President Reagan achieved Tax Reform legislation that most observers considered impossible, due to the entrenched special interests in Washington. It lowered tax rates and ignited an economic boom that lasted for 20 years. Working with Newt Gingrich, President Clinton achieved landmark Welfare Reform, one of the signature achievements of his Presidency. These two great Presidents had extensive executive experience, and something else that is critical: LEADERSHIP! Sadly, Barack Obama---who travels the world bowing to foreign dignitaries and apologizing for America---couldn't lead a fart out of an asshole.
As President Reagan told Jimmy Carter on the campaign trail, there's no "crisis of confidence" or malaise with the people of this great country. The problem isn't with the people, the problem is with the leadership---an incredible shrinking President named Barack Obama.
You'll have more credibility if you try using some numbers occasionally, to support your charges that Reagan damaged our economy. I've given you all the key economic metrics for the Reagan years already; the key thing is that Reagan created 17 million new jobs. President Clinton created 22 million new jobs in the 90's; would that have happened if, as you suggest, Reagan had damaged the foundations of our economy?
Barack Obama has lost 4.1 million jobs in his first year in office, and the outlook is not good: