CNN already whipping out the ole' FactChecker

[jackstar7]

So the final version of the bill wasn't crafted by Democrats behind closed doors and Nancy Pelosi didn't say "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?

Are you saying that the above is the same as the below?

Democrats were unwilling to compromise on...Obamacare.

 

[dmcowen674]

They should use the fleetwood mac song as the theme for the convention....

:whiste: tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Can't, Republicans have that locked up already

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And Congress had all of 72 hours to read, understand, research, and discuss the 2500 page largest bill in us history. That's really working together with Republicans.

The only compromise going on behind the scenes was with Democrats (not Republicans) in order to assure they had enough votes to get the bill passed. There was a holdout group of 7 pro-life Democrats that believed the bill violated the Hyde Amendment which prevents public funding of abortion and protects the conscience clause. To get their vote, Obama promised to sign an Executive Order protecting the Hyde Amendment (see Executive Order 13535). Obama then turns around and backs the HHS mandate which essentially nullifies his Executive Order and effectively breaks his promise to the 7 pro-life Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13535

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate

Obama stabs his friends in the back....what a slimeball.

 

[diesbudt]

Obama stabs his friends in the back....what a slimeball.

May be a slimeball move.

But that was a well played Political move.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you saying that the above is the same as the below?

Answer my 2 questions and then you'll understand the intent of my statement. This really isn't difficult.

 

[woolfe9999]

Of course they would.

Same length as democrats have blamed Bush.

But would it have been really his fault? No definitely not.

Again political people always use the best/worst stats they can on a campaign competition. The weak minded will believe the blame Obama would have gotten for it and been a stronger republican vote next time around.

Some of us don't. I didn't blame Bush for 911, and I don't blame Obama for job losses which occurred in the first 3 months of his administration. I reject the notion that one affixes blame where it doesn't logically apply because supposedly the other side would do the same.

Right now, what has happened with employment in this country is probably the single most important issue in this election. Conservatives are absolutely full of shit when they measure it from day 1 and anyone with half a brain should know this. If some dems were full of shit in 2001 when they blamed Bush for 911, that is irrelevant. Who is responsible for 911 is not an issue in this election.

- wolf

 

[blankslate]

Nice link. I know this may surprise you, but both parties top priority is to win elections and limit the other party to as few terms as possible.

But as I've said there are no instances in which an equivalent ranking Democratic Senator who has said the same thing.
Otherwise it definitely would have been posted on youtube.com and someone would have linked to it. "Nice Link." as reply and generalities about every party trying to win doesn't address the blatant statement of the obstruction that was to come in the following months years.

For example Sen. Al Franken wasn't seated until around the middle of 2009.

Never mind the number of filibusters that suddenly spiked.

BTW...you do have a very good question..."Why wasn't the top political priority to be improve the economy?" in 2009. Why did pork barrel spending and Obamacare take precedent?

I don't disagree that Health care reform should have probably been put behind economic concerns. However, if Republicans hadn't stonewalled on basically their own program that process could have been a lot shorter.

As for Pork Barrel spending? the 2009 stimulus was about 30% percent tax cuts.

Jobs bills that President Obama has introduced have been shot down because they didn't compose entirely of tax cuts... even if tax targeted tax credits were a component of at least one of the proposals.

 

[jackstar7]

Answer my 2 questions and then you'll understand the intent of my statement. This really isn't difficult.

Who said I didn't understand your intent? Heck, it's not even difficult.

I called your initial statement a lie, because it is. You have posted nothing to prove otherwise.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who said I didn't understand your intent? Heck, it's not even difficult.

I called your initial statement a lie, because it is. You have posted nothing to prove otherwise.

This is a lie. I've told you exactly what I meant by my statement.

 

[jackstar7]

This is a lie. I've told you exactly what I meant by my statement.

Your statement was a lie. You clarified your position, but the original statement stands and remains false.

It's not like you went back and edited your previous statement to put it in the context you are now trying to create retroactively. You just leave it there... and it's still not true.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But as I've said there are no instances in which an equivalent ranking Democratic Senator who has said the same thing.
Otherwise it definitely would have been posted on youtube.com and someone would have linked to it. "Nice Link." as reply and generalities about every party trying to win doesn't address the blatant statement of the obstruction that was to come in the following months years.

For example Sen. Al Franken wasn't seated until around the middle of 2009.

Never mind the number of filibusters that suddenly spiked.

Get real. There are many examples of Democratic obstructionism. Since you asked...here's a youtube.com link where numerous ranking Democrats cheered their obstructionism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM

I don't disagree that Health care reform should have probably been put behind economic concerns.

Yes, Obama placed Obamacare well above job creation. That was fairly obvious from the start. I believe he actually thought ARRA was going to solve the problem. He was wrong.

However, if Republicans hadn't stonewalled on basically their own program that process could have been a lot shorter.

It's not "basically their own program"...there are significant differences.

As for Pork Barrel spending? the 2009 stimulus was about 30% percent tax cuts.

What about the other 70%? Where are the jobs?

Jobs bills that President Obama has introduced have been shot down because they didn't compose entirely of tax cuts... even if tax targeted tax credits were a component of at least one of the proposals.

No. The reason his Jobs Bill was shot down that the bill was basically a mini-Porkulus that came with significant spending as well as significant tax increases. Also, didn't Mitch McConnell try to bring Obama's jobs bill to a vote and Democrats actually went to the extent to change long-standing Senate rules to prevent a vote on the bill?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65148.html

 

[Spungo]

I think this one is worse mainly because of our crushing debt and manufacturing outsourcing going into it, but unless you're too young or too dumb to remember the misery index, you'll know the recession Reagan inherited was certainly comparable. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment.

I think we can all agree that Reagan being responsible for the largest expansion of government in history is what pulled us out of the recession because it got people back to work even if that work was a bunch of BS (Star Wars). This is why you should vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who vow to do the exact opposite of what Reagan did and shrink the government by something like 1/3 or more.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your statement was a lie. You clarified your position, but the original statement stands and remains false.

It's not like you went back and edited your previous statement to put it in the context you are now trying to create retroactively. You just leave it there... and it's still not true.

I put it in context in a subsequent post...just what the fuck is your problem?

 

[blankslate]

Get real. There are many examples of Democratic obstructionism. Since you asked...here's a youtube.com link where numerous ranking Democrats cheered their obstructionism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM

Just as I thought no high ranking Democratic Senator stating that their goal is to make sure President Bush only served one term.

Way to conveniently leave out the fact that the Social Security reform he proposed was basically the corporatization of Social Security.

Here's a clue a group of Senators celebrating preventing a change to one of the the things their party makes a point to defend does not equal saying "our goal should be to make sure so and so is a one term President."

But go on though.

It's not "basically their own program"...there are significant differences.

There were more similarities than differences by far. The ACA that was passed shares many features to the Republican counter proposal introduced during the 90s in response to Hillary-Care

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx

Notice the first item. both had a mandate. From there on it's more alike than different.
There are many significant similarities. So much so that I will say again "basically their own program."
Given that it's rather surprising that they argued so hard against it.

What about the other 70%? Where are the jobs?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-13-stimulus_N.htm

Remember at the end of 2008 10s of thousands of jobs were being lost per month if not 100's of thousands.

You can't just snap your fingers and reverse the freefall once it has already started.

Without the stimulous what do you think would have happened to rate of job loss?

As you can see here http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t01.htm

Job losses start early in 2008 and kept on increase then peaked in 2009 and then the numbers of losses decreased until there were gains. However it wasn't enough of a gain even if there were gains.

This chart is based on the Bureau of Labor statistics from the link above in a more friendly visual form.

No. The reason his Jobs Bill was shot down that the bill was basically a mini-Porkulus that came with significant spending as well as significant tax increases. Also, didn't Mitch McConnell try to bring Obama's jobs bill to a vote and Democrats actually went to the extent to change long-standing Senate rules to prevent a vote on the bill?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65148.html

Sorry, but according to a different story on the same site the you reference...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63069.html

...the jobs bill would have added about 1.9 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by about 1% hmmm that would have put the job rate to just under 8% perhaps. that seems to be a talking point in the campaign and it definitely would have helped President Obama if it fell below 8% by 2012.

above chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Of course members of Congress have their own researchers who can inform them of this data.

In light of the number of jobs the proposal could have created and what it might have done to reported unemployment rates it's easy to see how blocking this bill could serve to accomplish the goal suggested by the person in the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA
Because the 8% number has been a talking point in this campaign.

Not to mention the CBO reported that the bill would have a beneficial impact on deficit spending in the long run.

 

[Jhhnn]

No. The reason his Jobs Bill was shot down that the bill was basically a mini-Porkulus that came with significant spending as well as significant tax increases. Also, didn't Mitch McConnell try to bring Obama's jobs bill to a vote and Democrats actually went to the extent to change long-standing Senate rules to prevent a vote on the bill?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65148.html

Kee-rist. Politico identifies McConnell's play as trickery, but you try to represent it as something else.

Utterly dishonest.

 

[jackstar7]

I put it in context in a subsequent post...just what the fuck is your problem?

Dishonesty.

 

[JEDIYoda]

All other Presidents are measured from the day they take office. Or at least when it favors the statistics someone wants to use.

Not true at all.......
Also most other presidents did NOt inherit the mess Obama inherited!

Also most other president were being undermined at every turn by the other party who wanted to make sure that nothing good happened so that they could regain the white house!!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Dishonesty.

Mr. Pedantic, I gave you the context of my statement which you clearly chose to ignore. You see a lie because that's what you want to see...the dishonesty here is all you.

 

[Matt1970]

Not true at all.......
Also most other presidents did NOt inherit the mess Obama inherited!

Also most other president were being undermined at every turn by the other party who wanted to make sure that nothing good happened so that they could regain the white house!!

Well almost all the graphs you will find all start with a President's first year, so ya, they are judged by their first year. Second, Obama had control of the House and Senate, promised to work with Republicans yet didn't even invite a single one when writing the 2500 pages of Obamacare. How are we supposed to work with someone who doesn’t even acknowledge your presence unless it is to get a good sound bite in on TV?

 

[boochi]

Also most other president were being undermined at every turn by the other party who wanted to make sure that nothing good happened so that they could regain the white house!!

Just like when the demwits had control of both houses of congress after the 2006 elections?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Kee-rist. Politico identifies McConnell's play as trickery, but you try to represent it as something else.

Utterly dishonest.

So...it's "trickery" to ask the Senate to vote on Obama's Jobs Bill. Interesting.

The reason McConnell wanted the Senate to vote on it was because it was quite obvious Obama's Jobs Bill had glaring issues...so much so that it was clear that there wouldn't be nearly enough Democratic votes to get it passed. For the Senate to vote on it would bring this embarrassing fact to public attention. So the Dems used their "trickery" to prevent this from happening until they could fix the bill in order to get enough Democratic support. Bottom line, McConnell wanted to make a point of just how shitty Obama's Jobs Bill actually was. Am I misrepresenting what happened?

 

[jackstar7]

Mr. Pedantic, I gave you the context of my statement which you clearly chose to ignore. You see a lie because that's what you want to see...the dishonesty here is all you.

I'm not ignoring your context. Your statement is still a lie. There was exhaustive compromise in the crafting of the healthcare reform.

You re-framed your statement to try and make it a true statement, but the original statement remains false.

Your stubbornness isn't virtuous.

 

[blankslate]

Just like when the demwits had control of both houses of congress after the 2006 elections?

haha, demwits ermergerd that was soooo witty.

Maybe if they had control of the Congress throughout President Bush's terms he would not have been able to enact the tax cuts which helped to crater the economy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

The above situation is the extreme consequence of giving Republicans control of the White House and the Congress during President Bush's terms in the early 2000s. Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what we want to do again....

Teabaggers.... too many of them are idiots with short memories.

 

[Matt1970]

The above situation is the extreme consequence of giving Republicans control of the White House and the Congress during President Bush's terms in the early 2000s. Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what we want to do again....

Teabaggers.... too many of them are idiots with short memories.

Oh right, without Bush there wouldn't be any deficits.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not ignoring your context. Your statement is still a lie. There was exhaustive compromise in the crafting of the healthcare reform.

You re-framed your statement to try and make it a true statement, but the original statement remains false.

Your stubbornness isn't virtuous.

"I like being able to fire people." - Romney
"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy." - Biden
"You didn't build that." - Obama

You can twist anything you want into a lie. Context is everything.