|
On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote:
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate. I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips. In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.
hahahahaha this post is fucking gold
|
I think it's hilarious how talks in elementary schools are more organized than obama giving an address to congress. Can't we just say in the beginning "hold your applause"? And really? We need name calling and the "ooooooo he's in troubleeeeee" sounds that go along with it?
|
On September 10 2009 13:04 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote:
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate. I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips. In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet. hahahahaha this post is fucking gold
There's absolutely nothing false in what he was saying.
|
The bailout fucked over the country?
please explain this.
On September 10 2009 13:07 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:04 Ace wrote:On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote:
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate. I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips. In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet. hahahahaha this post is fucking gold There's absolutely nothing false in what he was saying.
I know, I was saying I liked the post not mocking it ^_^
|
On September 10 2009 12:51 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:35 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection. There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt. Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though. Controlled inflation is not the devil. But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately.
Whatever problem printing money can get us into, printing money can get us out of.
|
On September 10 2009 13:06 sith wrote:
I think it's hilarious how talks in elementary schools are more organized than obama giving an address to congress. Can't we just say in the beginning "hold your applause"? And really? We need name calling and the "ooooooo he's in troubleeeeee" sounds that go along with it?
But if you hold the applause he wouldn't be interrupted 47 times and the speech would only last about 10 minutes!
Oh, wait...
|
On September 10 2009 13:07 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:51 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:35 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection. There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt. Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though. Controlled inflation is not the devil. But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately. Whatever problem printing money can get us into, printing money can get us out of.
What?
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
Watching the rebroadcast
Did he mention something about making individuals have some basic responsibility? Because that is damn important
|
On September 10 2009 13:08 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:51 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:35 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection. There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt. Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though. Controlled inflation is not the devil. But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately. Whatever problem printing money can get us into, printing money can get us out of. What?
He's joking, printing money fucks you over 100% of the time.
|
On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:
I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.
In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.
|
Wow Wilson's opponent has apparently received 50k in donations in the past three hours.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wow Wilson's opponent has apparently received 50k in donations in the past three hours.
LOL YES! I just saw this  Pure gold.
|
On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote:
I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital? What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs. In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.
Imagine this...
A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy.
Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy.
The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc.
This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition).
Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run.
Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it.
|
On September 10 2009 13:09 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:08 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 10 2009 13:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:51 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:On September 10 2009 12:35 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection. There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill. "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend. The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too. If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon. Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt. Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though. Controlled inflation is not the devil. But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately. Whatever problem printing money can get us into, printing money can get us out of. What? He's joking, printing money fucks you over 100% of the time.
Yes, my brothers, let us overthrow the tyranny that is currency and barter as our ancestors once did!
|
On September 10 2009 13:25 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote:
I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital? What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs. In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care. Imagine this... A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy. Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy. The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc. This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition). Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run. Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it.
Wow, you put a lot of time into your example,
But this is what Obama is fighting for along with the public Government-run health care, and it's almost been guaranteed that we're going to get better coverage, mainly with pre-existing conditions that insurance companies didn't want to pay for before.
- Also, all the way to motbob's post: The public option is pretty much the only part of the bill that cuts down costs and if it "isn't that big of a deal", costs are obviously gonna go up.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:25 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote:
I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital? What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs. In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care. Imagine this... A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy. Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy. The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc. This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition). Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run. Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it.
Yeah... Did I ever say that preventive care shouldn't be covered or something? Yes it's also an important facet of this picture and should be taken into account. Umm... That's a long example to prove a point
|
Anyone who thinks Obama said anything new in this either has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't know how to read, never listened to any other speech he has given, or lives in fantasy land.
Everything he said tonight he has already said. It isn't going to change any minds, and it isn't going to persuade blue dogs to vote for it in exchange for their jobs. Given he is losing personal and political popularity and votes by always talking, this isn't helping things.
And to anyone that says he shouldn't be called a liar, then he shouldn't be applauded or cheered either. Calling a joint session to give a speech, something bush only did immediately after 9/11, doesn't give him diplomatic immunity to say anything he wants to a very important audience and millions of americans who are watching.
|
On September 10 2009 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Anyone who thinks Obama said anything new in this either has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't know how to read, never listened to any other speech he has given, or lives in fantasy land.
Everything he said tonight he has already said. It isn't going to change any minds, and it isn't going to persuade blue dogs to vote for it in exchange for their jobs. Given he is losing personal and political popularity and votes by always talking, this isn't helping things.
And to anyone that says he shouldn't be called a liar, then he shouldn't be applauded or cheered either. Calling a joint session to give a speech, something bush only did immediately after 9/11, doesn't give him diplomatic immunity to say anything he wants to a very important audience and millions of americans who are watching.
The president is a cheerleader. They don't do anything but cheer/talk and press a Yes/No button after all is said and done.
The reason he called the speech was to discuss the health care reform bills being drawn up by congress. Its not important to make sure everyone is on the same page when a huge bill is being drawn up?
I'd say it is. He isn't up for reelection for another 4 years, this isn't for votes... He is just doing his job.
|
When someone can give me a reasonable answer as to how the hell this will ever be "budget neutral" I'll reconsider my position.
But as it stands I feel Obama is being deceptive in his numbers.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Anyone who thinks Obama said anything new in this either has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't know how to read, never listened to any other speech he has given, or lives in fantasy land.
Everything he said tonight he has already said. It isn't going to change any minds, and it isn't going to persuade blue dogs to vote for it in exchange for their jobs. Given he is losing personal and political popularity and votes by always talking, this isn't helping things.
You are objectively wrong.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-speech-watchers-favor-obamas-proposals/
It did change minds. Many thought it was a good speech. Stop generalizing what you thought of it to all Americans, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
