100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Biggest lie of 2010: 'Government takeover of health care' | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
LOL You're the one claiming Obama didn't try to keep his promise. Of course you wouldn't because that would mean admitting that your precious Repub Party is more concerned with corp's wants and wishes than the American people. If you admitted that then the whole house of cards would crumble and fall. Then, minds would reel with confusion from culture shock. They aren't my precious Repub Party I am not Republican but Independent..........the politicians fd it up....and I don't believe that any politicians are good be they dem or republican......I would like to see the whole mess of them out honestly......and serving no more than two terms from the school boards on up state and federal to make new people be voted in every couple terms....no one should be able to hold political jobs for an eternity...and it would be all well and good to try if he had just promised to try but he promised to do and unless any politician can keep a promise that they make they should only be promising to try not promising to do......part of the problem if all politician promised to try instead of promising to do it would help.....because it just makes them all look like liars period......get off your high horse he broke his promise period he never promised to try to do anything he promised to do it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He did but,
US President Barack Obama called on Congress on Saturday to pass reforms limiting the influence of special interest groups on US elections, saying the integrity of US democracy needed to be protected. "What we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "And what is at stake is no less than the integrity of our democracy." The appeal came after a recent US Supreme Court ruling that gave corporations, lobbyists, other special interest groups -- foreign and domestic -- the power to spend unlimited money to influence the outcome of US elections. The ruling meant that corporations would be allowed to run political television advertisements ahead of national and local elections without telling voters who was paying for them, said Obama. Congress therefore needed to adopt reforms under which campaign committees would have to reveal who was funding them, and their leaders or financiers would have to claim responsibility for their ads, the president argued. Also, the reforms will restrict foreign corporations and foreign nationals from spending money in American elections, the president said. "This shouldn't be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue," he argued. "This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a government that works for ordinary Americans - a government of, by, and for the people. "That's why these reforms are so important. And that's why I'm going to fight to see them passed into law." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/obama-calls-legislation-restrict-lobbyist-influence-elections/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was after this,
On 21 January 2009, the day after he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama signed two executive orders and three presidential memoranda[13] to help ensure his administration would be a more open, transparent, and accountable government. These documents attempt to rein in the influence of lobbyists, bring increased accountability to federal spending, and limit influence of special interests; they include a lobbyist gift ban and a "revolving door" ban. In May 2009, a Recovery Act Lobbying Rules set new limits on special interest influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you see,
Obama did and then the Republican appointed judges of the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and lifted all limits. It was brought up to the SC by Republican law makers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize what you are saying but until politicians learn to say I promise to try as opposed to I promise to it is a lie when they do not and I am not saying one but the one that say I promise to try is the one that is not lying to me and hence the one I wish to vote for........he did what he did because other promised to I get you.....and I realize we have the executive judicial and administrative part of government all trying to stick it to one another and I agree foriegn money influencing the outcome is wrong.....but did not foriegn money influence Obama becoming President too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i find it incredibly funny and sad that Americans are actually AGAINST universal health care...  I'm not against it, I'm against paying for it against my will...if i don't need it, why should i pay for it? it is just some bureaucrat with their get rich quick scheme. So if you don't pay for it, who IS going to pay for it when you all over in the street and go to the ER with a life-threatening illness that you didn't count on? Do you expect to be turned away if you're in so much pain you can't even stand? How civilized is that? As to the bureaurats reaping a whirlwind of profit, they're all in the insurance companies, opportunistically raising prices something like 40 % on the premise that a few years down the road it will cost more money if we don't do exactly what THEY say. People have to have car insurance in most states, and no one disputes that's a Good Idea (tm) except the wild-eyed uber-Libertarians who are against anything that offends their notion of their being a Society Of One. -Kerry O. It is in fact not a good idea for government to mandate insurance. This is not only piss-poor economics, it is bad ethics. Where does government get the authority for this mandate? It's not in the Federal or any State constitutions. The government certainly does not own us. Where does the money come from to pay for an insurance mandate? The government doesn't pay for it (the government is broke). This passes the burden on to average people. Bastiat famously observed the "seen versus unseen" costs of government. This applies to everything the government does. In this case, we may "see" the cost of mandated insurance in terms of black and white, raw numbers. What we don't see (among many other things) is the misallocation of capital which could have been used for any number of more useful things. This leaves both society and every individual poorer in terms of both money and utilitarian objects and services. This misallocation ripples through the economy as well. With less capital in the form of savings, less interest is accrued and investment is diminished. The "broken window" fallacy made famous by Bastiat applies here. In that famous allegory, the glazier with little work to do appeals to the authorities to break windows in order to give him more business. Thus, the authorities begin breaking windows. This makes the glazier gainfully employed and much wealthier, but the owners of the original windows have lost capital for no good reason. The government can go around breaking proverbial windows with mandates and so forth, but this always comes at the expense of directly and indirectly affected individuals. Also, "uber-libertarians" like myself (though I call myself a Voluntaryist in order to distance myself from other types of libertarians, mainstream or otherwise) don't advocate "a society of one". This is mostly an Objectivist/Randian theory (aka "Going Galt"). This is different than most stripes of libertarians, who usually argue the primacy of the individual as well as the usefulness of society to the extent that interactions between groups and individuals are voluntary. (we could not have any significant economy without society, after all) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize what you are saying but until politicians learn to say I promise to try as opposed to I promise to it is a lie when they do not and I am not saying one but the one that say I promise to try is the one that is not lying to me and hence the one I wish to vote for........he did what he did because other promised to I get you.....and I realize we have the executive judicial and administrative part of government all trying to stick it to one another and I agree foreign money influencing the outcome is wrong.....but did not foreign money influence Obama becoming President too? Nope. 8 years of lies, war, and loss of civil rights and freedoms. 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party screwing Americans for their own agenda and embarrassing our nation around the world. The People finally got tired of it and elected a man who promised to redirect us back on our proper course, so we could achieve the world leadership role we are capable of. He has tried, but the total disruption to our political process and National recovery, from the party of no has made the job harder than it need be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize what you are saying but until politicians learn to say I promise to try as opposed to I promise to it is a lie when they do not and I am not saying one but the one that say I promise to try is the one that is not lying to me and hence the one I wish to vote for........he did what he did because other promised to I get you.....and I realize we have the executive judicial and administrative part of government all trying to stick it to one another and I agree foreign money influencing the outcome is wrong.....but did not foreign money influence Obama becoming President too? Nope. 8 years of lies, war, and loss of civil rights and freedoms. 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party screwing Americans for their own agenda and embarrassing our nation around the world. The People finally got tired of it and elected a man who promised to redirect us back on our proper course, so we could achieve the world leadership role we are capable of. He has tried, but the total disruption to our political process and National recovery, from the party of no has made the job harder than it need be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i find it incredibly funny and sad that Americans are actually AGAINST universal health care... I'm not against it, I'm against paying for it against my will...if i don't need it, why should i pay for it? it is just some bureaucrat with their get rich quick scheme. So if you don't pay for it, who IS going to pay for it when you all over in the street and go to the ER with a life-threatening illness that you didn't count on? Do you expect to be turned away if you're in so much pain you can't even stand? How civilized is that? As to the bureaurats reaping a whirlwind of profit, they're all in the insurance companies, opportunistically raising prices something like 40 % on the premise that a few years down the road it will cost more money if we don't do exactly what THEY say. People have to have car insurance in most states, and no one disputes that's a Good Idea (tm) except the wild-eyed uber-Libertarians who are against anything that offends their notion of their being a Society Of One. -Kerry O. It is in fact not a good idea for government to mandate insurance. This is not only piss-poor economics, it is bad ethics. Where does government get the authority for this mandate? It's not in the Federal or any State constitutions. The government certainly does not own us. Where does the money come from to pay for an insurance mandate? The government doesn't pay for it (the government is broke). This passes the burden on to average people. Bastiat famously observed the "seen versus unseen" costs of government. This applies to everything the government does. In this case, we may "see" the cost of mandated insurance in terms of black and white, raw numbers. What we don't see (among many other things) is the misallocation of capital which could have been used for any number of more useful things. This leaves both society and every individual poorer in terms of both money and utilitarian objects and services. This misallocation ripples through the economy as well. With less capital in the form of savings, less interest is accrued and investment is diminished. The "broken window" fallacy made famous by Bastiat applies here. In that famous allegory, the glazier with little work to do appeals to the authorities to break windows in order to give him more business. Thus, the authorities begin breaking windows. This makes the glazier gainfully employed and much wealthier, but the owners of the original windows have lost capital for no good reason. The government can go around breaking proverbial windows with mandates and so forth, but this always comes at the expense of directly and indirectly affected individuals. Also, "uber-libertarians" like myself (though I call myself a Voluntaryist in order to distance myself from other types of libertarians, mainstream or otherwise) don't advocate "a society of one". This is mostly an Objectivist/Randian theory (aka "Going Galt"). This is different than most stripes of libertarians, who usually argue the primacy of the individual as well as the usefulness of society to the extent that interactions between groups and individuals are voluntary. (we could not have any significant economy without society, after all) Sorry, that's just a cop out. You only want someone to pay for the cops after the windows are broken-- except when they are YOUR windows. Then you expect to be fully compensated by a system in which you had not one iota of participation. Indeed, one which you've badmouthed until it came time for YOU to get something for nothing. That's the polar antithesis of what the Galt character in Rand's Atlas Shrugged stood for, asking another man to live and work for benefits one has no inclination of earning-- the 'each according to their needs' scenario that caused Galt to 'quit' society. This scenario is nothing more than a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, where the people who do the right thing get saddled with the Sucker's Payoff. But sooner of later, the payoff matrix 'learns', and in later iterations, the Suckers demand that the Slackers face the consequences of their habitual freeloading. That's what eventually HAS to happen with healthcare and it won't be pretty. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sat 12/18/10 10:28 PM
|
|
I realize what you are saying but until politicians learn to say I promise to try as opposed to I promise to it is a lie when they do not and I am not saying one but the one that say I promise to try is the one that is not lying to me and hence the one I wish to vote for........he did what he did because other promised to I get you.....and I realize we have the executive judicial and administrative part of government all trying to stick it to one another and I agree foreign money influencing the outcome is wrong.....but did not foreign money influence Obama becoming President too? Nope. 8 years of lies, war, and loss of civil rights and freedoms. 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party screwing Americans for their own agenda and embarrassing our nation around the world. The People finally got tired of it and elected a man who promised to redirect us back on our proper course, so we could achieve the world leadership role we are capable of. He has tried, but the total disruption to our political process and National recovery, from the party of no has made the job harder than it need be. All the people I know who voted for him, still support him. Don't believe everything that FOX and the Repub bloggs say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize what you are saying but until politicians learn to say I promise to try as opposed to I promise to it is a lie when they do not and I am not saying one but the one that say I promise to try is the one that is not lying to me and hence the one I wish to vote for........he did what he did because other promised to I get you.....and I realize we have the executive judicial and administrative part of government all trying to stick it to one another and I agree foreign money influencing the outcome is wrong.....but did not foreign money influence Obama becoming President too? Nope. 8 years of lies, war, and loss of civil rights and freedoms. 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party screwing Americans for their own agenda and embarrassing our nation around the world. The People finally got tired of it and elected a man who promised to redirect us back on our proper course, so we could achieve the world leadership role we are capable of. He has tried, but the total disruption to our political process and National recovery, from the party of no has made the job harder than it need be. All the people I know who voted for him, still support him. Don't believe everything that FOX and the Repub bloggs say. i voted for him, and i can't stand him... but he was a better choice at the time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You voted for him.
You must realize the difficulties he faces. Just be supportive and patient. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You voted for him. You must realize the difficulties he faces. Just be supportive and patient. |
|
|
|
|
