PDA

View Full Version : 'What freedoms are being taken away?



Qtec
03-02-2010, 01:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Alan Colmes asks: 'What freedoms are being taken away?' Fox's Megyn Kelly doesn't answer.</span>


BMegyn Kelly wanted to talk about Fox News' latest Opinion Dynamics poll, which asked people about their attitudes on government spending and the reach and power of the federal government, with a set of questions clearly geared toward Tea Party movement sentiments, as well as a recent CNN poll -- similarly trying to gauge the Tea Partiers' reach -- that found 54 percent believe the federal government poses a threat to their rights.

So she brought on Fox's token liberal, Alan Colmes, to discuss these results, and he pointed out that at least some of those who see the federal government as a threat to their rights are people who object to the Republican-backed Patriot Act. Then he asked an interesting question of the Tea Party folks:

Colmes: I'd like to know exactly what freedom -- what freedoms are being taken away from people?

Kelly: People are worried they're going to lose their health-insurance coverage! They're worried the federal government is going to step in, take over, and they're not going to be able to see their coverage.

Colmes: I didn't see any particulars about exactly what freedoms people think are going to be taken away. I would like to know what they are.

Kelly: There is just as much in this survey about health care as there is the Patriot Act!

Colmes: Yeah, but nothing in this survey says particular health care, particular Patriot Act, it's just a general question, "freedoms". I mean, what particular freedoms. People call my radio show all the time, 'My freedoms are being compromised.'

All right, I ask them. What freedom is being compromised? What freedom have you lost under Barack Obama?

Kelly: You tell me, Alan -- do you think the Democrats on Capitol Hill are going into 2010 election thinking, 'The problem with numbers like this is the Patriot Act! It is the Bush administration policies.'

Colmes: They're also not going, 'The problem is health care. If we get health care, my freedoms are being taken away.' How do your freedoms get compromised?

Kelly tried to argue that the people who fear for their freedoms are monolithically anti-Obama Tea Partiers, and reflected somehow in the high numbers of those opposing the Senate health-care reform bill. But Colmes pointed out, accurately, that a large portion of those opposed to the Senate bill are people who want a public option.

Kelly: If you have a majority of Americans saying that the federal government poses a threat to the right[s] of Americans, those are not people who want the public option!

Colmes: Well, what rights are being -- wait a minute, you're suggesting that the public option is more government. No, it gives you greater options. It gives you greater opportunity.

I'd like to know what freedoms people think are being taken away. What particular freedom -- where in the Bill of Rights are you losing something, based on what? What have Obama or Democrats done to take any right away from you? I'd like to know what that is.

Kelly: OK, and on that note, e-mail me at Kelly@FoxNews.com and you can answer that question.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In other words: No answer from Megyn. Because she didn't have any after Colmes shot down her health-care trial balloon.</span>

Right-wing fearmongering pundits like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the long list have made it conventional wisdom among the right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers that Obama somehow mysteriously are "taking away our freeeeeedoms!"

But they never can tell you exactly what freedoms are being taken away without calling out the Oath Keepers and their black helicopters, can they? Which is why the Megyn Kellys out there just say nothing. </div></div>

with video (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/alan-colmes-asks-what-freedoms-are-b)

Q........... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
03-02-2010, 04:21 AM
Well, there's the freedom to,...er, and the freedom to be,....er, and the freedom to do...er....I guess tchr will have to explain it to us, as he knows jes about everythin.

LWW
03-02-2010, 07:02 AM
The freedom to keep one's private property.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices.

The freedom for locals to run school systems sans the feds intervention.

The freedom to maintain free speech upon the airways.

The freedom to dissent against the heavy handed state.

The freedom for state franchise laws to be respected.

The freedom for state bankruptcy laws to be respected.

The sheeple will walk into the slaughterhouse licking the hands of their executioners.

LWW

Deeman3
03-02-2010, 10:52 AM
Q,

I think many freedoms are being infringed upon, but not just by the present administration. We have seen our rights eroded for years and much of it privacy through medical records, now through the Patriot Act and just the open sharing of information through media and government. It is a balance between the needs oof individuals and the greater good. However, they (both sides) use fear to allow them access and they use the media to brand certain segments of society as nuts or outside the mainstream which used to be good, not particularily bad.

Now, for instance, a couple guns in your house will be defined as a weapon's cache and any meterials not in line with the present power- at-large, will be deemed as subversive, left and right.

We have empowered our government, then had them further grab more power to control our citizens. A traffic stop now can resemble a military action and, in many cases, escallate the situation, something many law emforcement officers love. John Stossel said something the other day about what the government's role should be in determining what you put in your body and, now, if you are dying and there are alternative treatments available, you can't use them for your protection? Hey, you are dying, how does a possible hope for you make it worse?

You government, despite many, many problems, like giving away your heritage to the Muslims, has done a pretty good job at de-criminalizing drugs. Look at how much less problems we would have if we decided that drugs themsleves were the issue, no the heavy handed enforcement of laws that lead to shootings, robberies and all kinds of violence. That right, if we had it, would make the drug war a simple medical issue and not the horrendous problem it is now.

I want my rights and I want security but having to give some up for fear is not worth it at least to ma.

LWW
03-02-2010, 11:03 AM
Deeman, people who live in nations where they have only the rights the state allows them to have cannot be expected to even comprehend what "FREEDOM" actually is ... much less the loss of it.

LWW

wolfdancer
03-02-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm going to miss your posts when I am banned here. You are able to get your messages across,and interject humor in them, a far cry from the posts of the usual suspects here

LWW
03-02-2010, 12:35 PM
I thought you liked Gayle?

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-02-2010, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You government, despite many, many problems, like giving away your heritage to the Muslims, </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Huh? Did you give away your heritage to the Muslims? Gee, why did you do that?

IIRC, the fear that led to people in this country to fail to protest the invasion of our privacy, was promoted by Bush et al. In fact, weren't plenty of people from the right, on this forum, calling those of us who protested illegal wire taps, secret rendition, home invasion, spying on library activities, etc., attacked by the trusting right, who was all for the illegal invasions of our privacy.

Isn't it the right, which seeks to intrude their religious belief system upon all other Americans, interfering with their personal private decisions. Isn't the right the side which agreed and defended Bush and the right wing protest against Terry's Scheivo's husband, exercise his legal right to end her suffering?

Wasn't it the right, which followed along with all the invasions of privacy, (which is the essence of freedom) who defended all of that?

Bush and Cheney used fear to control their base, and their base surrendered their privacy and freedoms, willingly, while seeking to invade other cherished rights of others, who are of a different opinion about the separation of church and state, the right to privacy, the right to control over one's own body.

There is more to privacy, and freedom, than just accumulating guns and assault weapons.

There is the right, for example, to have an abortion when a doctor tells you that carrying a fetus to term, may end your life.... Or cause only suffering, to bring it to term. Isn't it removing a woman's right, to force a woman to bring a fetus to term, when she's been raped?

One thing I cannot abide, is a rightie, protesting the loss of their rights, when they are so righteous about trying to infringe on everyone elses' ie. Gay rights, Women's rights, and the human right to decent affordable medical care!

The War On Drugs, for example, is a total waste of time and money. As was the Iraq invasion. Let the druggies kill themselves, with their chosen poison. Let the obese eat all of junk food they want. Just stop the corporate "pigs without conscience" from poisoning our food, water and air, and you'll see plenty of saved costs for health care.

Republicans are the ones, after all, who have tried to block tighter regulations, to prevent another Wall Street Wide Spread Ponzi Scheme, another massvie redistribution of wealth, from investors, to the filthy top 1% of wholesale crooks in this country.</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gov. has done a pretty good job at de-criminalizing drugs. Look at how much less problems we would have if we decided that drugs themsleves were the issue, no the heavy handed enforcement of laws that lead to shootings, robberies and all kinds of violence. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Hence, excuse me, Deeman, but isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

G. </span>

Deeman3
03-02-2010, 02:32 PM
Gayle,

I think you misunderstood the whole thing but that is not unusual. I was complimenting the Dutch (Q's Boys) on their decriminalization of drugs. The first comment was about the Dutch letting the Muslims take over their country as they are. Even the Dutch are waking up about now if it is not too late for them.

I know you are only focused on how you can squeeze anti Bush into the situation but it was really not about that. I was critical of all involved in the recent loss of rights.

It is a waste to talk to anyone on the loonie ends of either party here anymore. Geesh!

Gayle in MD
03-02-2010, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> think many freedoms are being infringed upon, but not just by the present administration. We have seen our rights eroded for years and much of it privacy through medical records, now through the Patriot Act and just the open sharing of information through media and government. It is a balance between the needs oof individuals and the greater good. However, they (both sides) use fear to allow them access and they use the media to brand certain segments of society as nuts or outside the mainstream which used to be good, not particularily bad.
</div></div>

LOL, maybe you should re-read your post.
Gayle,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,

I think you misunderstood the whole thing but that is not unusual. I was complimenting the Dutch (Q's Boys) on their decriminalization of drugs. The first comment was about the Dutch letting the Muslims take over their country as they are. Even the Dutch are waking up about now if it is not too late for them.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You government, despite many, many problems, like giving away your heritage to the Muslims, has done a pretty good job at de-criminalizing drugs. Look at how much less problems we would have if we decided that drugs themsleves were the issue, no the heavy </div></div>

"You government" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif???? Just one typo of many, which was less than clearly written.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look at how much less problems we would </div></div>


Same thought line, two different countries?
I do notice, you decided NOT to address any of my points, but instead, decided to bash my intelligence instead.

As I stated, IIRC, you righties were all for the invasions of privacy. Most of the RW posts on here are all in approval of the radical right wing of your party, (and their ideology) which is not just accused of being a dangerous element, they ARE a dangerous element, and they DO behave like nutcases.

Since the last time I looked, the Dutch were still running their country, I'd say that perhaps, a bit of editing on your part, may have been lacking.

I gave a number of examples of how the RW nutcases are all for infringing on the rights of others. No surprise, you bashed instead of addressing.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a waste to talk to anyone on the loonie ends of either party here anymore. Geesh! </div></div>

I agree! Double Geesh! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
03-02-2010, 03:17 PM
Deeman,
You might enjoy this book discussing how the crazy's from both sides are destroying the country. Both the radical right, and crazy left wing bats. (Those who vote straight party either direction would probably see themselves in the book, so some people probably shouldn't read it!)

John P. Avlon -- author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America.


Steve

sack316
03-02-2010, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"You government" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif???? Just one typo of many, which was less than clearly written.
</div></div>

typo criticism towards Dee from the person who only two posts before said

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but isn't this a bit of a contratiction?
G. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I'm just sayin'

Good to see you back. Hope you have enjoyed all the wonderful snow up there! If ya get a chance, email me some pictures, would love to see it!

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-02-2010, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"You government" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif???? Just one typo of many, which was less than clearly written.
</div></div>

typo criticism towards Dee from the person who only two posts before said

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but isn't this a bit of a contratiction?
G. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I'm just sayin'

Good to see you back. Hope you have enjoyed all the wonderful snow up there! If ya get a chance, email me some pictures, would love to see it!

Sack

</div></div>

Well sack, maybe I'm wrong, but Deeman's post did not distinguish very well when he was changing from discussing this country, with Q's country, and in fact, included both in the same paragraph, IIRC, which, if you will notice, I indicated in my response, left me confused over his overall point, hence, the question marks.

Thanks for the welcome. The pictures didn't turn out very well. I took advice from a certain man who said to change the setting over to snow, instead of leaving it on automatic, like I had it in the first place, and I listened. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I had to laugh at this post of yours, though. How many typos were in my post? How man typos were in Deeman's post? You know what they call what you just did, right? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "N"...and ends with a "G".... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

LWW
03-02-2010, 06:12 PM
STOP SHADOW POSTING BEHIND ME PLEASE.

People are going to talk.

LWW

sack316
03-02-2010, 11:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well sack, maybe I'm wrong, but Deeman's post did not distinguish very well when he was changing from discussing this country, with Q's country, and in fact, included both in the same paragraph, IIRC, which, if you will notice, I indicated in my response, left me confused over his overall point, hence, the question marks.</div></div>

I don't see any confusion in the post you are speaking of. It began as addressed to Q... some parts contained "we" as in us. The other part, while granted said "you government" is obviously meant as "your". Given it was addressed to Q, I logically concluded "your government" refers to "them" and not "us".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the welcome. The pictures didn't turn out very well. I took advice from a certain man who said to change the setting over to snow, instead of leaving it on automatic, like I had it in the first place, and I listened. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif</div></div>

Well now I know you knew better than that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had to laugh at this post of yours, though. How many typos were in my post? How man typos were in Deeman's post? You know what they call what you just did, right? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "N"...and ends with a "G".... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

</div></div>

Even without you spelling it out, I concluded you meant "nitpicking". See? Not so hard. And yes, it is nitpicking. I'm glad you recognize that and hope that you see your pointing that out to Dee for his post as being the exact same thing.

You obviously make it through Mac's posts just fine, so I'd guess you could manage through Deeman's few typos. I only pointed yours out for the irony of it... which you must admit was humeris (there, left ya a freebie) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
03-03-2010, 04:28 AM
Breaking open the Scotch and watching G Beck is not a good idea! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The Muslim takeover.....I must have missed it.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
03-03-2010, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Muslim takeover.....I must have missed it.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

That happens a lot when one buries one's head.

LWW

Deeman3
03-03-2010, 08:11 AM
Gayle,

If it is that my typos are just too much, for a person who never makes them, then we really can't have any sensible conversations.

If people were that confused over my intent and meaning, I can't help them that much.

I won't start an editing war with you or anyone else as I had hoped we could get back to some sort of exchange of ideas. I was wrong. Forgive me.

You can answer your own posts now and, perhaps, then there will be little reason for us to disagree no matter where the commas are placed of the words are spelled.

Gayle in MD
03-03-2010, 05:37 PM
I make typos myself, Deeman...and I didn't complain to YOU about your typos, and anyway, it really doesn't matter which country you were refering to, neither one, Q's or ours, has been taken over by Muslims. That was the point.

Also, I think you misunderstood me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Huh? Did you give away your heritage to the Muslims? Gee, why did you do that?
</div></div>

G.

wolfdancer
03-03-2010, 05:41 PM
"Did you give away your heritage to the Muslims? Gee, why did you do that?"
I think it was for the 79 virgins at the end of the rainbow....

Gayle in MD
03-03-2010, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Did you give away your heritage to the Muslims? Gee, why did you do that?"
I think it was for the 79 virgins at the end of the rainbow.... </div></div>

Ya think? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Well, personally, I thought that was a very broad, long stretch, to make, suggesting that Muslims had taken over Q's country, but then, some of us are not allowed to inquire of others about WTF they're trying to suggest, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
03-04-2010, 05:40 AM
http://thumb7.shutterstock.com.edgesuite.net/photos/display_pic_with_logo/181465/181465,1242392537,3.jpg

LWW

Qtec
03-04-2010, 05:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The freedom to keep one's private property.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices.

The freedom for locals to run school systems sans the feds intervention.

The freedom to maintain free speech upon the airways.

The freedom to dissent against the heavy handed state.

The freedom for state franchise laws to be respected.

The freedom for state bankruptcy laws to be respected.

The sheeple will walk into the slaughterhouse licking the hands of their executioners.

LWW </div></div>

Which one of these freedoms have been taken away by Obama?

Q

LWW
03-04-2010, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The freedom to keep one's private property.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices.

The freedom for locals to run school systems sans the feds intervention.

The freedom to maintain free speech upon the airways.

The freedom to dissent against the heavy handed state.

The freedom for state franchise laws to be respected.

The freedom for state bankruptcy laws to be respected.

The sheeple will walk into the slaughterhouse licking the hands of their executioners.

LWW </div></div>

Which one of these freedoms have been taken away by Obama?

Q </div></div>

The freedom to keep one's private property was erased a few years back by the leftist SCOTUS.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices is under assault from OBAMACARE.

The freedom for locals to run school systems sans the feds intervention was erased in the 1970's by Jimmuh Cahtuh's Dept of Education.

The freedom to maintain free speech upon the airways is at risk from the left with it's idea of the "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" being put back in place.

The freedom to dissent against the heavy handed state is under constant assault from the American far left.

The freedom for state franchise laws to be respected was erased in the Chrysler bankruptcy as franchise holders with a history of backing conservative candidates were forced to surrender their franchises ... which were absorbed into the sales areas of dealers with a history of backing demokook candidates.

The freedom for state bankruptcy laws to be respected was also erased in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW

Qtec
03-04-2010, 06:35 AM
Admit it, it will do you good. Obama has not taken away one single freedom you had under Bush.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Admit it, it will do you good. Obama has not taken away one single freedom you had under Bush.

Q </div></div>

Not yet. But he's trying...and we still have to deal with him for 3 more years!

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Admit it, it will do you good. Obama has not taken away one single freedom you had under Bush.

Q </div></div>

Not yet.

Steve </div></div>

So the answer is ............NONE!

Thank you.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 09:43 AM
Like I said, Not yet. He has given every indication that he will do whatever is necessary to get his agenda through, and the result will be more government and less individual freedom.

Damn, do we have to wait for it to actually happen to be concerned????????????

If a robber puts a gun in your chest and says he's going to shoot, do you wait until he pulls the trigger to start to worry??

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 09:44 AM
Head for the hills. Its the end of America.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Head for the hills. Its the end of America.

Q </div></div>

What's the matter? Can't defend you position???

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 09:56 AM
What facts have YOU presented to support your argument?

NONE..........only opinion and a request that I do your research for you.

When you say Obama is taking your freedoms away its up to YOU to provide examples.

Q

LWW
03-04-2010, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Admit it, it will do you good. Obama has not taken away one single freedom you had under Bush.

Q </div></div>

Step #1 is to remove your head from the sand.

LWW

LWW
03-04-2010, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What facts have YOU presented to support your argument?

NONE..........only opinion and a request that I do your research for you.

When you say Obama is taking your freedoms away its up to YOU to provide examples.

Q </div></div>

Several have been shown to you.

Your refusal to observe reality is not anyone else's fault.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-04-2010, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What facts have YOU presented to support your argument?

NONE..........only opinion and a request that I do your research for you.

When you say Obama is taking your freedoms away its up to YOU to provide examples.

Q </div></div>

LOL, hard for the righties to prove their lies. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Here are some:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LIE #1: Health insurance reform is "one-size-fits-all government run health care"
TRUTH: If families have coverage and like their plan they can keep it, and are protected against insurance company abuses.

LIE #2: I think 'Washington' knows best
TRUTH: Families in Nevada and around the country know best, that's why the Senate bill gives them more insurance choices.

LIE #3: The Senate's 'big government' health care plan will raise taxes
TRUTH: Right now families pay more than $1,000 each year to cover people who don't have health insurance - it's a hidden tax and reforming insurance eliminates it by giving every American access to quality, affordable coverage.

LIE #4: Health insurance reform puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor
TRUTH: Insurance companies put profit-motivated bureaucrats between patients and their doctors now, rationing care by dropping people when they get sick, denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and capping yearly and lifetime benefits. Reform will end these shameful practices.

Let's make them pay-per-lie, donate $8, $16, or $24 today - $1, $2, or $3 dollars for every one

LIE #5: The Senate bill will weaken Medicare
TRUTH: Reform strengthens Medicare, improves benefits for seniors, and ends multi-billion dollar giveaways to insurance companies they don't need and we can't afford.

LIE #6: Reform will kill jobs
TRUTH: The cost of health care is crippling small businesses - the Senate bill aims to ease that burden and protect small business jobs.

LIE #7: Reform will push us further into debt
TRUTH: The Senate bill is fiscally responsible, cutting the deficit by $132 billion over the next decade.

LIE #8: 'Government-run health' care is wrong
TRUTH: SCHIP is good for kids, Medicare helps Seniors, Medicaid gives a hand up to millions who can't afford coverage, and the VA works for our Veterans.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Their heads are always filled to the brim with propaganda. Bush burried us in debts and interest on debts, and made us financially impotent to address any major economic disaster long before Democratics, or Obama, were even in power.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]

The Effect of President Obama’s Budget
The key question is: where do we go from here? President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to reduce anticipated deficits over the next ten years, chiefly by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule for high-income taxpayers, closing certain tax loopholes and reforming the international tax system, keeping estate taxes at their 2009 parameters, enacting health care reform along the lines of the Senate- and House-passed bills, and freezing (in aggregate) most appropriations for non-security domestic programs for the next three years. The President also backs another round of temporary recovery measures that would boost the deficit in 2010 through 2012, a proposal that is appropriate in size and well targeted. [8]

According to the Administration’s own estimates, its budget would reduce deficits by $2.1 trillion over the 2011-2019 period — or (more appropriately) by $1.2 trillion, when using a baseline that (like CBPP’s) assumes a gradual phasedown of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and does not count future reductions in costs there as lowering the deficit. (See Figure 2.) The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation are currently sifting through President Obama’s budget proposals, and we await the results of that analysis. Although the Administration and CBO figures will certainly not match exactly — for a variety of economic, technical, and conceptual reasons — it is clear that, using a reasonable benchmark, the President’s budget proposals would reduce future deficits by a significant amount.[9]

Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and Congress will need to take considerably larger steps. The President himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on a sustainable footing and is establishing a bipartisan fiscal commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions. First and foremost, policymakers will need to restrain the growth of health care costs — especially as we gain more knowledge of how to accomplish that. Among other steps, they also will need to consider the extent to which additional revenues should contribute to deficit reduction.

Technical Note
Baseline projections depict the likely path of the federal budget if current policies remain unchanged. We base our estimates on CBO’s latest ten-year projections, published in January 2010, with several adjustments to reflect what will happen if we continue current tax and spending policies.

Specifically, our baseline includes the budgetary effects of continuing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire after 2010, renewing certain other so-called “tax extenders” such as the research and development tax credit, and continuing relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Our baseline also assumes the effects of continuing to defer scheduled cuts in payments for Medicare providers, as has routinely occurred in recent years, and instead providing doctors with a payment increase based on the Medicare Economic Index. We also account for a gradual phase-down of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and unanticipated natural disasters. In all cases except for natural disasters (for which we adopted an assumption from the Administration’s 2011 budget), we based our adjustments on estimates published by CBO. Finally, we have adjusted these numbers to put outlays associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on a cash basis — as reported in the budget and in the Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS), although CBO prefers a different budgetary treatment.

We calculated major components of the deficits as follows:

Economic downturn — This category includes all changes in the deficit that CBO labeled “economic” in the four reports — in January, March, and August 2009 and January 2010[10] — that it has issued since September 2008, which total $1 trillion over the 2009-2018 period. It also includes the bulk of revenue changes that CBO classified as “technical.” In the revenue area, so-called technical changes essentially refer to trends in collections that CBO’s analysts cannot tie directly to published macroeconomic data. In fact, those data become available with a lag and are subject to major revision; weak revenues are often a tipoff that the economy is worse than the official statistics suggest. Furthermore, some key determinants of revenues — such as capital gains on stock-market transactions — are tied to the economy, but those influences are not captured by the standard macroeconomic indicators. Because the economic-versus-technical distinction is so arbitrary for revenues, we have ascribed most of CBO’s large, downward “technical” reestimates to the economic downturn. We add the associated debt-service costs. The technical reestimates to revenues and the associated debt-service costs add $1.5 trillion and $0.4 trillion, respectively, to this category over the 2009-2018 period.

Combined, the factors that we ascribe to the economic downturn account for nearly $3 trillion in extra deficits in 2009 through 2018. [11]

TARP, Fannie, and Freddie — The Treasury spent $243 billion for these entities in 2009 ($152 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, net of dividends received). Projections for 2010 through 2019 come from CBO’s January 2010 baseline. We computed the extra debt-service costs, which total $112 billion over the 2009-2019 period. (By 2014, virtually the entire cost shown in Table 1 represents debt-service costs.)
Recovery measures — When ARRA was passed, it bore a “headline” cost of $787 billion as officially estimated by CBO. [12] In January 2010, CBO revised that figure to $862 billion, chiefly to reflect higher costs than initially expected for ARRA’s provisions governing unemployment insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) — primarily as a result of economic conditions — and for Build America Bonds.[13] We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[14] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle. The AMT provision accounted for $70 billion of ARRA’s $862 billion cost, leaving $792 billion. CBPP then added the cost of several smaller, discrete recovery measures that were enacted in the fall of 2009, totaling $58 billion in 2010 (but just $14 billion over the 2010-2019 period).[15] We then added the associated debt-service costs, which amount to $304 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[16] (We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA.) Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.4 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — and $330 billion in 2019 alone.
War costs — Spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities cost $610 billion through fiscal 2008, according to CBO ($575 billion for the Department of Defense and $35 billion for international affairs), and another $160 billion in 2009. [17] We based estimates of costs in 2010 through 2019 on CBO’s projections, adjusted for a phase-down to 60,000 troops; those costs come to $1 trillion.[18] We add the associated debt-service costs, which came to $64 billion through 2008 and will total another $683 billion over the 2009-2019 period ($119 billion in 2019 alone).


Conspicuously missing from this list is the Medicare prescription-drug program that Congress enacted in 2003. That new program has also added significantly to deficits through 2019, but data limitations leave us unable to quantify its net budgetary effects (see the box below).

What About the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?
One of the major domestic initiatives of the Bush Administration was enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (known informally as the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA). The MMA created a new prescription-drug benefit in Medicare, known as Medicare Part D. This legislation was only partly paid for, and it added significantly to the deficit that President Obama inherited. Why is it absent from this analysis?

The Congressional Budget Office initially estimated that the MMA would add to the deficit by $395 billion over its first decade, spanning the years between 2004 and 2013. (Medicare’s chief actuary pegged the net cost significantly higher — at $534 billion over that period.) CBO’s estimate consisted of $552 billion in net spending — new benefits, partially offset by premiums and by receipts from the states — for the new Medicare drug benefit itself, minus $157 billion in savings in Medicaid and other federal programs. Although that “headline” estimate spanned ten years, costs were negligible in the first two years, because the new benefit took effect in January 2006.

Part D outlays are coming in somewhat lower than CBO and the Medicare actuary expected, but it is not possible to update the original price tag for the entire MMA. CBO now expects the net cost of Medicare Part D over that initial 2004-2013 period to be about $370 billion (as compared to the original $552 billion figure). But, it is not possible to tell whether the savings in Medicaid and other programs have deviated from CBO’s original estimate of $157 billion. While Part D is a new, identifiable account in the federal budget, those other effects represent relatively small changes in large, ongoing programs.

In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the 2009-2019 period that is this paper’s focus, CBO now expects net outlays for Part D to total approximately $840 billion (over $120 billion in 2019 alone), but some fraction of that will be offset by savings in Medicaid and other programs that we are not able to estimate. Nevertheless, it is clear that, as noted above, enactment of the prescription-drug program added materially to the deficit that the current administration inherited.

The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — using its own economic and technical assumptions — projects baseline deficits under current policies of $10.6 trillion in 2010 through 2020. OMB judges that the President’s proposals would reduce those deficits by $2.1 trillion, of which $0.9 billion comes from phasing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (similar to the policy that is already assumed in CBPP’s baseline) and $1.2 trillion from other tax and spending proposals.[19] It is not yet possible to put the Administration’s and CBO’s projections on a fully comparable footing. Like other budget-watchers, CBPP awaits CBO’s analysis of the President’s latest budgetary proposals, which is expected to be published in March 2010.

End Notes:

[1] Congressional Budget Office, The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (September 2008). As CBO itself acknowledged, its baseline employed some arguably unrealistic assumptions about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and other policies; several other organizations pegged future deficits much higher than CBO’s official estimates. See, for example, the Concord Coalition, “Setting Expectations: Why Baselines Matter in the Presidential Campaign and for the Fiscal Future” (September 11, 2008); Cato Institute, “$1 Trillion Budget Deficit by 2017?” (September 11, 2008).

[2] Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 (January 2009).

[3] At the same time, the recession pushed down inflation and interest rates, which generated some offsetting savings.

[4] That occurred on September 7, 2008 — too late for inclusion in the CBO report issued just two days later.

[5] CBO estimates that ARRA boosted the number of people employed in the United States by 600,000 to 1.6 million in the third quarter of 2009 and that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher than it would have been if ARRA had not been enacted. Under CBO’s latest projections, ARRA’s impact on real GDP will peak in the first half of 2010. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation do not ascribe macroeconomic effects to individual pieces of legislation (a practice known as “dynamic scoring”), but it is reasonable to think that ARRA’s beneficial effect on incomes and employment shrinks the law’s true price tag. Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output as of September 2009, November 2009, p. 1, and The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020, January 2010, p. 30.

[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[7] See Kathy Ruffing, Kris Cox, and James Horney, “The Right Target: Stabilize the Federal Debt,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 12, 2010.

[8] Kris Cox, “President’s Budget Requests $266 Billion to Support Economic Recovery,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 5, 2010.

[9] It will be important, when gauging the President’s proposed deficit reduction measures, to express them relative to a baseline that more accurately reflects current policies. CBO is likely to state that the President’s proposals would increase future deficits, but as explained in the technical note at the end of this paper, that is because — by law — the CBO baseline assumes that a number of current policies that policymakers are very likely to extend will be allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.

[10] Congressional Budget Office, The Economic and Budget Outlook (January 2009),A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook (March 2009), The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (August 2009), and The Economic and Budget Outlook (January 2010).

[11] Estimates are not available for 2019 because CBO’s August 2008 projections ended in 2018. For Figure 1, CBPP arbitrarily assumed that this category amounted to $300 billion in 2019 — a continuation of the previous few years’ pattern.

[12] See Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (February 13, 2009, online at http://www.cbo.gov) and Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions Contained In The Conference Agreement For H.R. 1, The ‘American Recovery And Reinvestment Tax Act Of 2009’” (February 12, 2009, online at http://www.jct.gov).

[13] See Appendix A, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” in CBO January 2010.

[14] That one-year fix — made necessary by the interaction of the AMT and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts — is instead combined with the “Bush-era tax cuts,” below.

[15] Specifically, these reflect measures to extend the homebuyers’ credit, allow businesses to carry back certain operating losses, extend and expand the tax credit for continuation of health insurance coverage for workers who lose their jobs, and lengthen the duration of the temporary program for emergency unemployment compensation by 20 weeks. See Appendix B, “Changes in CBO’s Baseline Since August 2009” in CBO January 2010.

[16] CBO January 2010, “The Budgetary Effects of Selected Policy Alternatives Not Included in CBO’s Baseline” (Table 1-5) and unpublished backup from CBO.

[17] CBO January 2010, “Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Other Related Activities” (Box 1-1).

[18] CBO January 2010, Table 1-5.

[19] See Office of Management and Budget, Summary Table S-2, “Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits,” in Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (February 2010).

</div></div>

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

eg8r
03-05-2010, 01:08 PM
Wasn't that your mantra during the previous admin? A bit hypocrtiical don't you think?

eg8r