PDA

View Full Version : This President is Sooooooooooo Full of it!!!!



pooltchr
02-15-2011, 03:27 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/28/health-care-costs-question-obama-administration-grant-waivers/

He pushed through a bad, unconstitutional law so he could have his legacy.

He lied about saving people money. The fact is, this law will increase healthcare costs.

He ignores the courts when they tell him the law is unconstitutional.


Recently, I've heard several Democrats making statements that increasing healthcare costs are going to hurt our economy.

WHAT?????????????

I thought Obamacare was supposed to bring down healthcare costs and cut the deficit at the same time!!!

Now (after not presenting a budget last year due to the pending elections), we get Obama's plan that assures us more deficit spending!

He got his stimulus, and the economy and unemployment are still a disaster.

He got his healthcare, and healthcare costs and deficit spending are still going up.

How can anyone in their right mind believe a word that comes out of this man's mouth??????????????????

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-15-2011, 06:45 PM
I don't think most of those are accurate criticisms.

He pushed through a bad, unconstitutional law so he could have his legacy.

It's allegedly unconstitutional, with mixed rulings, 2-2, 2 for it being fine, 2 say no, and about 12 saying the lawsuit lacked standing so they threw them out without hearing the case.

He lied about saving people money. The fact is, this law will increase healthcare costs.

According to the dissent to the bill that claimed this, that independent actuary who works for Medicare, the total increase in healthcare costs related to this bill, compared to what would otherwise be the case if the status quo ante were instead in place, is under 1% (0.9%). Considering that some 30+ million will be added into regular care, this means that the REST of the persons already in coverage at this time must be getting a considerable cost savings.

He ignores the courts when they tell him the law is unconstitutional.

Hardly. Had the Florida judge done the standard thing, as he was asked to by plaintiff's pleadings, and imposed an injunction, the O administration would have gone to court to have that set aside. In the meantime, a single federal judge's ruling has not settled the question.

Now (after not presenting a budget last year due to the pending elections), we get Obama's plan that assures us more deficit spending!

Steve, Steve. Of course we're going to have deficit spending-- there is no alternative to that result now and in the medium term. When have we NOT had deficit spending, let alone in the aftermath of a bad recession that has dropped tax revenues, already at near-historic lows, some $350 billion a year lower due to unemployment? We do not live in a magical realm where presidents can wave a wand and get a balanced budget.

He got his stimulus, and the economy and unemployment are still a disaster.

He got his healthcare, and healthcare costs and deficit spending are still going up.

The people of this country lost $15 TRILLION in wealth (out of about $50 trillion), with 'wealth effect' consumption demand down $100 billion a year. As long as the overhanging real estate disaster continues, the economy and unemployment are going to remain weak and high, respectively.

These problems cannot be turned off and on with a switch. What has to happen is incremental improvement, and we've already seen a 180 degree turnaround in economic growth, from -6% gdp in the last quarter of '08, to positive gdp growth that began just about exactly when the stimulus kicked in.

What OTHER mechanism of the economy do you suppose came in so strongly as to take an economy contracting in free-fall fashion, to turn it around in a quarter or two and keep it growing all the intervening time, EXCEPT the stimulus?

Sev
02-15-2011, 07:18 PM
You do realize Pelosi wrote an amendment to the healthcare bill that has a mandatory fundinging requirement for 100,000,000,000 a year in the budget.

Also 2-2 is not a race nor does it mean anything. The entire law was declared unconstitutional by the court. That is the only ruling that matters.

Now Obama said that the increased spending was a one time time thing due to an emergency. Funny how he set the bar at the top of last year spending rather than returning to the level prior to TART and the "Stimulus".
Might that be because of all the massive increases in spending in government agencies that have occurred in the past 2 years?

Soflasnapper
02-15-2011, 08:52 PM
You do realize Pelosi wrote an amendment to the healthcare bill that has a mandatory fundinging requirement for 100,000,000,000 a year in the budget.


I doubt this is true. The Speaker doesn't write amendments, and often may not even vote on a given measure. So you mean instead 'the Pelosi-led House'?

Also 2-2 is not a race nor does it mean anything. The entire law was declared unconstitutional by the court. That is the only ruling that matters.

Not exactly. The VIRGINIA based federal judge who also ruled the mandate was unConstitutional decided only to throw out that part of it, leaving the rest untouched.

The FLORIDA federal judge only found the mandate unConstitutional, but instead of doing as the VA judge did, threw it all out, not because the rest of it WAS unConstitutional, but because there was no severability clause. By his own statement, HAD there been such a severability clause, the rest of it would have been fine and kept in place, at least as to Constitutional challenge.

Why a single federal judge's ruling is the ONLY one that matters is puzzling. He doesn't even have the final say in that one appellate district, let alone across the country.

Now Obama said that the increased spending was a one time time thing due to an emergency. Funny how he set the bar at the top of last year spending rather than returning to the level prior to TART and the "Stimulus".
Might that be because of all the massive increases in spending in government agencies that have occurred in the past 2 years?

This is a good point that I agree with.

Sev
02-15-2011, 09:23 PM
No. It seems the amendment came out of Pelosi's office. Contained within that amendment is a clause the states that later congresses can not remove it. Which in it self is questionable to constitutionality as no later congress is beholding to a previous one. However the amendment is there.

Wrong. The last ruling trumps the previous 3. And until such a time as a higher court reverses that ruling the entirety of Obamacare is now unconstitutional.

Well we agree on 1 out of 3. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
02-15-2011, 09:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. It seems the amendment came out of Pelosi's office. Contained within that amendment is a clause the states that later congresses can not remove it. Which in it self is questionable to constitutionality as no later congress is beholding to a previous one. However the amendment is there.

Wrong. The last ruling trumps the previous 3. And until such a time as a higher court reverses that ruling the entirety of Obamacare is now unconstitutional.

Well we agree on 1 out of 3. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

No, no Speaker of the House sits on any committee, unless it is the Committee of the Whole (House). Someone ELSE on whichever committee it was made the motion for that amendment. And I think you misremember the topic of that amendment.

This may remind you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What he did find, however, in Section 3403, is something called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. The purpose of the IMAB is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” In his next post DrRich will examine the IMAB in more detail, to try to show exactly how this board will reduce healthcare spending. Suffice to say for now that the new law awards the IMAB sweeping powers, powers that will affect all American healthcare (and not just Medicare), and that hands the government some truly useful tools for covert rationing.

In the present post DrRich will simply make two striking observations about the IMAB which, he believes, ought to tell us something useful about the mindset of those who – in striving to fundamentally transform America – have now successfully remade our healthcare system.

First, as the IMAB carries out its assigned job of reducing the growth in healthcare spending, it is explicitly forbidden to ration healthcare. Specifically, the IMAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.” Since rationing is Job One, this directive necessarily limits the IMAB to engaging in covert rationing (since covert rationing is, by definition, deniable by the party who is doing it). Thus, covert rationing is now the law of the land.

And second, Section 3403, the section that creates the IMAB and spells out its functions, contains language that, DrRich suspects, has never been seen before in American legislative history:

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

So, dear reader, the IMAB and all its legislated functions (including the requirement to do its rationing covertly) are in force for perpetuity. Our Congress has passed legislation that purports to bind all future Congresses from altering it in any way.</div></div>

This applies to the IMAB, not the funding level.

And until such a time as a higher court reverses that ruling the entirety of Obamacare is now unconstitutional.

That is NOT how things work. At a far higher level, an appellate court ruled that plea bargaining was an impermissible inducement for testimony and illegal. Nobody stopped the practice of plea bargaining, even in the face of an APPELLATE COURT ruling it illegal.

LWW
02-16-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think most of those are accurate criticisms.

He pushed through a bad, unconstitutional law so he could have his legacy.

It's allegedly unconstitutional, with mixed rulings, 2-2, 2 for it being fine, 2 say no, and about 12 saying the lawsuit lacked standing so they threw them out without hearing the case. </div></div>

Irrelevant.

The highest court to rule has said it is unconstitutional. Until reinstated by a higher court, it remains null and void. That's how our system works.

Sorry.

LWW

LWW
02-16-2011, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He lied about saving people money. The fact is, this law will increase healthcare costs.

According to the dissent to the bill that claimed this, that independent actuary who works for Medicare, the total increase in healthcare costs related to this bill, compared to what would otherwise be the case if the status quo ante were instead in place, is under 1% (0.9%). Considering that some 30+ million will be added into regular care, this means that the REST of the persons already in coverage at this time must be getting a considerable cost savings.</div></div>

Irrelevant.

Even taking this most optimistic estimate available ... we were promised a reduction in costs of $2,500.00 per year for a family of four. This was the O-cults mantra ... until dear leader told them to repeat the estimate you mention.

Oh for two.

LWW

LWW
02-16-2011, 04:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He ignores the courts when they tell him the law is unconstitutional.

Hardly. Had the Florida judge done the standard thing, as he was asked to by plaintiff's pleadings, and imposed an injunction, the O administration would have gone to court to have that set aside. In the meantime, a single federal judge's ruling has not settled the question.

</div></div>

You seem sensible one moment and then parrot the party line the next. The judge stated quite clearly that the decision was a de facto injunction, and that no actual injunction was needed because the entire bill was being struck down.

The plaintiff's asked for injunction because they didn't believe a judge would smack down the entire bill as a whole.

Oh for three.

LWW

LWW
02-16-2011, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now (after not presenting a budget last year due to the pending elections), we get Obama's plan that assures us more deficit spending!

Steve, Steve. Of course we're going to have deficit spending-- there is no alternative to that result now and in the medium term. When have we NOT had deficit spending, let alone in the aftermath of a bad recession that has dropped tax revenues, already at near-historic lows, some $350 billion a year lower due to unemployment? We do not live in a magical realm where presidents can wave a wand and get a balanced budget.

</div></div>

True, and irrelevant.

Dear leader promised to halve the deficit he "INHERITED" ... which is in itself laughable being that he and his party passed it kicking and screaming that the POTUS blocked them from making it even larger via threat of a veto ... and instead doubled it.

His party inherited a deficit in 2007 that the will have increased tenfold in under 5 years.

Oh for four.

LWW

LWW
02-16-2011, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He got his stimulus, and the economy and unemployment are still a disaster.

He got his healthcare, and healthcare costs and deficit spending are still going up.

The people of this country lost $15 TRILLION in wealth (out of about $50 trillion), with 'wealth effect' consumption demand down $100 billion a year. As long as the overhanging real estate disaster continues, the economy and unemployment are going to remain weak and high, respectively.

These problems cannot be turned off and on with a switch. What has to happen is incremental improvement, and we've already seen a 180 degree turnaround in economic growth, from -6% gdp in the last quarter of '08, to positive gdp growth that began just about exactly when the stimulus kicked in.

What OTHER mechanism of the economy do you suppose came in so strongly as to take an economy contracting in free-fall fashion, to turn it around in a quarter or two and keep it growing all the intervening time, EXCEPT the stimulus?</div></div>

According to his own part's CBO the stimulus will be a net drag on the economy.

Oh for five.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-16-2011, 10:41 AM
WILL BE? Not now.

Over a long time window, something like 10 to 20 years, some slight effect is estimated. No such effect in the near term.

So, you don't have any explanation as to why the economy went from free-fall to growth other than the stimulus? I didn't think so.

Sev
02-16-2011, 11:32 AM
Perhaps because not matter how bad our economy is the general public still spends a tremendous amounts of money.

Keep in mind true unemployment is still at around 18%. Foreclosures are thought to be another record high this coming year.

The US economy is dynamic even under the worst conditions. I suspect that if they stopped at TARP we would be in same position as we are now less almost a trillion in debt to China.

LWW
02-16-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WILL BE? Not now.

Over a long time window, something like 10 to 20 years, some slight effect is estimated. No such effect in the near term.

So, you don't have any explanation as to why the economy went from free-fall to growth other than the stimulus? I didn't think so.

</div></div>

Sure I do.

1 - The "GROWTH" spoon fed to the left is largely illusory and usually downgraded soon after the headlines die down.

2 - The economy eventually rebounds anyway.

3 - The Obamedia beat the <span style='font-size: 26pt'>"DEPRESSION"</span> drum so loudly that the recession was blown up due to rampant fear mongering.

4 - GDP per capita was actually up in 2008 and down in 2009.

IOW ... the long term structural issues facing America are being papered over so that a largely financially illiterate populace is lulled back to sleep.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-17-2011, 02:44 PM
4 - GDP per capita was actually up in 2008 and down in 2009.


Government figures disagree.

Official GDP numbers, Excel format file (http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls)

From line 88:

2008 2.2 0.0
2009 -1.7 -2.6
2010 3.8 2.9

These are the gdp figures for these years. The first number is the nominal gdp growth difference, without correcting for inflation. The second number is stated in inflation-adjusted terms as the difference in chain-linked '05 dollars.

As you can see, '08 REAL gdp growth was 0. Unless we LOST POPULATION in '08 (we didn't), there was no growth in per capita gdp, and actually, since we had more capitas in the mix, a zero real gdp growth rate means a NEGATIVE per capita gdp growth.

In the same chart, line 87, we see the real gdp growth rate in '07 was 1.9%.

Here are the QUARTERLY numbers, where the two numbers are stated as I said above (from the same source, starting at line 253):

2008q1 1.0 -0.7
2008q2 4.1 0.6
2008q3 0.4 -4.0
2008q4 -7.9 -6.8
2009q1 -3.9 -4.9
2009q2 -0.4 -0.7
2009q3 2.3 1.6
2009q4 4.7 5.0
2010q1 4.8 3.7
2010q2 3.7 1.7
2010q3 4.6 2.6
2010q4 3.4 3.2

(Starting at line 253)

These show very bad declines in gdp in 3Q and 4Q '08, a quite bad but improved by 28% decline in 1Q '09 (-4.9% compared to -6.8% the prior quarter); then the improvement to almost 0% drop (-0.7%), and then real growth from 3Q '09 until now.