Obama's Progressive agenda is Horrible for America

reply to post by maybereal11


So you've fallen for the idea that it doesn't matter what the people have, as long as money keeps flowing from one hand to another the economy is OK?

Welfare has become nothing more than living off the sweat of others. Once you're on it, it becomes beneficial to stay that way. House, lights, water, food... all for free. It's a pretty sweet set up for those in the program too. I've seen it first hand. Unemployment with no end in sight IS welfare.

Don't get me wrong, I know people are suffering because of the economic mess. However, putting more people on assistance programs only puts more burden on those who lives haven't collapsed yet. It's not a free program. Those still just keeping their heads above water get passed the bill and on and on until no one is left to foot the bill.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

reply to post by PayMeh


Very well put. Was about to make a similar response!

reply to post by maybereal11


Your post is all over the place and it shows why liberals, progressives or whatever you want to be called today can't defend their positions. Everything they say or do is always taken out of context when they are called on their nonsense. From Obama saying we need to spread the wealth to Anita Dunn, the White House ex Communication Director admiring the mass murderer Mao Zedong. Of course you will say they didn't mean what they said or it was taken out of context. Liberals, progressives or whatever you want to call yourself today always say what they mean, when they get challenged they know they can't defend this nonsense so they say people didn't really hear what they said.

Here's a video of progressive, fabian socialist, marxist or whatever you want to call him today, George Bernard Shaw talking about gassing people if they can't show there worth to the State. Here's the video:

www.youtube.com...

ObamaCare requires a 30% payment cut for Medicare reimbursements to doctors, effective in January 2011. According to a study commissioned by the American Osteopathic Association, fewer than half of physicians say they will be able to continue seeing their current Medicare patients next year. The present Medicare reimbursement rates are so low that many doctors are unable to see Medicare patients, and this law only exacerbates the problem. Doctors, without the possibility of breaking even on Medicare patients, will quickly discontinue accepting seniors with Medicare.

alineofsight.com...

Next they will try to bring back end of life care in order to help the elderly kick the bucket with dignity.

This same strain of thinking runs through the left today. Your worth to the State is more important than your freedom or liberty. This is why Obamacare will ration healthcare especially to the elderly. The way you ration health care is through the control of reimbursement rates.

Obama told a woman that her mother and other old folks might just have to take a pill instead of surgery. The lady asked, do we need to take into account a persons spirit and love of life when making these decisions and Obama basically said no. This is because the elderly on medicare are seen as a drag to the state and the left knows it can't come out and say they want them to die "peacefully of course" and that way they will not be a drain on the state.

www.youtube.com...

Obama is talking about redistribution of wealth. He wants the "rich" to pay more so the crooks in Washington who already have us 13 trillion in the hole can waste more money.

Here's a video of the interview where Obama talks about redistributive change and more progressive nonsense, but of course after you listen to it, don't believe your lying ears.

www.youtube.com...

Here's more videos of Obama talking about spreading the wealth:

www.youtube.com...

Obama said in this video that we have a choice, we can keep on borrowing or a person like him who makes money can pay a little more for the poor waitress that can't get by.

First, you will notice that he didn't say cut spending. Our choices are we borrow money or raise taxes. God forbid we cut spending and stop the crooks in Washington from wasting and spending our children's and grandchildren's money before they're even born.

He also talks about the poor waitress. The way you help the waitress is not through massive government spending and massive debt. You help her by reducing the scope and size of government so the economy can take off and she can can make a killing in tips.

www.youtube.com...

Your whole defense of Obama is a joke. You can't defend what he said so you have convinced yourself that everyone just misunderstood or took him out of context. You said:

The 4 minute spliced collection of clips portrays Obama as advocate a redistribution of wealth through the power of the Supreme Court. That folds in with some allegations by the McCain Palin campaign.

The twist here is that, when heard in the context of the whole show, Obama's position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.

Again, Obama had to be taken out of context because you can't defend what he said. He said, the courts are not the best place to seek "redistributive change." He said the best way to achieve this is through legislation and this is what you're seeing now.

He said the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties because they talked about what the government can't do to you and not what the government "MUST" do on your behalf.

This is wrong. The Constitution instituted a government to protect the God Given rights of the individual. This is what the government "MUST" do on your behalf. Obama is talking about redistributive change and this is what the Founders wanted to avoid.

This is because Obama, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan, Carter and every other President and Congress will have a different idea on what Government must do. So the Founders left this to the dictates of ones own conscious, not the dictates of Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The Progressive movement is fine for talk shows but there's no way they should be running government. They don't like America as it stands and this is why Obama said the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrained government and it didn't talk about the redistribution of wealth.

This is why he wants to change and transform America into something it's not.

Who do you suggest we put in charge?
We already know the republicans can't be trusted to follow the CONSTITUTION and work in our best interests so that leaves them out as well.
So who do you suggest?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Your post is all over the place and it shows why liberals, progressives or whatever you want to be called today can't defend their positions. Everything they say or do is always taken out of context when they are called on their nonsense.

Translation....I refuted your BS claims with actual transcripts and links and you are unable to respond.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
From Obama saying we need to spread the wealth to Anita Dunn, the White House ex Communication Director admiring the mass murderer Mao Zedong.

I already provided links and evidence refuting your "spread the wealth" BS and as far as Anita Dunn and the "Mao" BS...I have a present for you by way of the conservative Wall Street Jouranl...

Pres. Bush is a Mao lover

Bush Is a Book Lover
A glimpse of what the president has been reading..

By KARL ROVE

....


By coincidence, we were both reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."

.We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he [Pres. GW Bush] encouraged me to read a Mao biography;

See how easy this is?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

ObamaCare requires a 30% payment cut for Medicare reimbursements to doctors, effective in January 2011. According to a study commissioned by the American Osteopathic Association, fewer than half of physicians say they will be able to continue seeing their current Medicare patients next year.

alineofsight.com...

Well that is interesting...because yesterday the "American Osteopathic Association" you quote above said...

Medicare "Doc Fix" Ordeal for Physicians Could Worsen If GOP Captures House November 2

"The prospects of long-term change are very small," added Shawn Martin, director of government relations for the American Osteopathic Association (AOA).

www.medscape.com...

Why the contradiction? Because you failed to notice that the GOP is more interested in cutting Medicare payments and doing so in a blanket fashion rather than reform..than the "Liberals" you are ranting about . Many on the far right would even like to eliminate it as it is a "socialist" program after all

Did you not watch the HCR debates?

Not much honesty in your posts...it leaves little room for productive discussion.

edit on 29-10-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

All this partisan bickering is the only BS in this thread. Can we please stop debating over whether the people raping this country are right or left handed? It doesn't fricken matter.

Fact: Social programs are BAD. Not inherently, but as a species we're lazy. If given the choice, we will do as little as possible to squeeze an existence out. This makes those who actually NEED it suffer.

If you keep giving to those who don't contribute to society and work the system, those who do will always have a problem.

If you keep rewarding those who don't contribute with preferential treatment, you're going to piss off the ones who actually fund it.

Fact: Obama has had no reservations in REPEATEDLY stating that he believes the Constitution is flawed.

The Constitution is very limited in what it actually states. It defines legislative power, executive power, judicial power, state's power, amendment protocol, and lastly federal power. THAT IS ALL. So what does that mean he thinks is flawed? All the Constitution does is define the scope of each branches power and which one supersedes the other.

He's stated on multiple occasions his disdain of that pesky opposition from Congress in passing the legislation he's spearheaded. That leaves anyone with one thread of common sense to understand when he says the "Constitution is flawed" he means the executive branch's power is too limited or the legislative branch is too encompassing.

There is nothing in the Constitution that has caused problems. It's there for a reason. Primarily to stop those with agendas from doing damage if they ever make an office. Only a tyrant democrat/republican/Annunaki space alien from the 4th dimension would feel a NEED to attack the document that sets up the checks and balances of power.

After realizing THAT, all other things simply don't matter. Even if, IF, he's done a halfway decent job stabilizing the economy and fixed some things. Which most numbers say are false. It stops being a point when he openly states a tyrannical agenda. You don't excuse a murderer even if he cures cancer.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Obama told a woman that her mother and other old folks might just have to take a pill instead of surgery. The lady asked, do we need to take into account a persons spirit and love of life when making these decisions and Obama basically said no. This is because the elderly on medicare are seen as a drag to the state and the left knows it can't come out and say they want them to die "peacefully of course" and that way they will not be a drain on the state.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 29-10-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)

I am going to ask you to do a an intellectual excercise...pretend it is not Obama speaking...pretend you don't have colored glasses on and LISTEN...because what he actually says in you link is nothing like what you said.

Watch the "clip" again that you linked to...now see the actual transcript and ask yourself why this was hacked together in this manner..

I know this asking you to violate your...everything anti-obama is the gods truth...but here is SOME of the actual transcript..

And WOW was that youtube clip hacked-up and misleading..He actually advocates for her mom to get a pacemamker!!! The exact oposite of your claim..I will underline some parts for you that were mysteriously removed from the Youtube clip.

See the full transcript at the link...


STURM: She's 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old.

Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture

is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw

her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.

So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the

medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any

consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of

living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: And I want to find out what's she's eating.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is

that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to

deal with our own end-of-life care.

And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every

difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going

to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better

decisions within our own families and for ourselves.

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that

exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is

loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence

shows is not necessarily going to improve care,

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and

making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,

and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,

that's something we can achieve.

We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult

decisions at end of life, and ultimately that's going to be between

physicians and patients.

STURM: What I wanted to say was, that the arrhythmia

specialist who put the pacemaker in said that it cost Medicare $30,000

at the time. She had been in the hospital two or three times a month

before that, so let's say 20, 30 times being in the hospital, maybe

going to rehab, the cost was so much more. And that's what would have

happened had she not had the pacemaker.

OBAMA: Well, and that's a good example of where -- if we've got

experts who are looking at this, and they are advising doctors across

the board that the pacemaker may ultimately save money, then we

potentially could have done that faster.

abcnews.go.com...


* If we can reduce the amount of uneccessary surgeries and tests that folks go through that have no benefit beyond being a profit center for doctors...at the expense of risky proceedures and tests that might have side effects, then we should do that. It's an advisory function and in the end it is still up to doctor and patient.

I can't tell you how many times I have taken my own parents to a doctor for a given condition, been through tons of expensive tests and then went for a second opinion with a specialist to have that second doctor roll thier eyes and say that most of the tests the GP called for were uneccessary...it's money in a doctors pocket. It's dangerous...it's waste and I end up paying for tests that tell us nothing.

reply to post by PayMeh

Fact: Social programs are BAD. Not inherently, but as a species we're lazy. If given the choice, we will do as little as possible to squeeze an existence out. This makes those who actually NEED it suffer.

Excellent point! I have often thought to myself, " Why do I bother to work and struggle to make ends meet?".
I have seen plenty of others that have been dealt better cards in life than I have relying on the government to support them.

I guess it all boils down to my upbringing by my parents.... and the matter of my pride.

reply to post by maybereal11


Your post doesn't make sense.

Where are all these Doctors taking out Tonsils and doing all of these unnecessary test? How is Obama qualified or any panel in Washington qualified to make these decisions?

Quoting the transcript makes Obama look worse.

His whole rant was about "end of life care." In other words, die with dignity. Basically, Obama said they are going to ration health care from Washington. Doctors will not be making these decisions but experts he hand picks in Washington. They will determine which procedures are cost effective.

This is silly.

Doctors have to do a lot of tests because they are not psychic and you can't control this from Washington D.C.

I had a friend go to the Doctor with a headache. The Doctor did blood work and other tests and they discovered he had a tumor and they caught it early. They did this because of VOLUME.

Obama always talks about decreasing the VOLUME in health care and this will be done by a hand picked panel in Washington.

Again, Doctors are not psychic, and you can't control volume from Washington D.C.

I bet when Obama's family is sick, he wants volume.

reply to post by butcherguy


Yup. Some of us were raised to believe that we take care of ourselves as long as we are able to. A friend of mine's sister was a system user. Single mom, one child - free two bedroom apartment, free electricity, free water, enough food allowance to fill the freezer with steaks, and a gas allowance. She'd go out partying every weekend too. She was living the same lifestyle I was without working and had time to spend all summer on the lake. I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me bitter.

reply to post by maybereal11


The example you gave was one hand picked because it was not the normal case. That transcript is saying that the doctors were actually trying to cut down on costs. At 100 years old, you're well past your expectation of living. Going through with an operation at 100 years old is risky in itself even if it is just a pace maker. She was a medical abnormality. Obama used this interview to basically respond to the group who were yelling "death camp." That is all.

The bad part is, if you think about it. Discussing end of life planning pertaining to cost effectiveness and then saying you support giving 100 year old people pace makers is in direct conflict with itself. It's this flippant double talk that has everyone so pissed.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by maybereal11

 

His whole rant was about "end of life care." In other words, die with dignity. Basically, Obama said they are going to ration health care from Washington. Doctors will not be making these decisions but experts he hand picks in Washington. They will determine which procedures are cost effective.

It's crossed from irriatating to strange how out of touch with reality you are...

It's like trying to explain geography to someone that screams the earth is flat.

Health Care Reform and the "Death Panels"
The idea made popular by Sarah Palin and New York's former Attorney General Betsy McCaughey is that the government would make it mandatory for all Medicare recipients to undergo end-of-life counseling sessions "that will tell them how to end their life sooner". These so-called "death panels" would essentially be a way for our government to decide who was worthy of receiving expensive medical care and the elderly and frail would be at the bottom of that list. These poor elderly and sick people would be "killed off" if our government had their way.

This is a flat-out lie.

One version of the bill included a provision to pay for end-of-life consultations every five years. These proposed consultations would NOT be mandatory and would be patient-led, meaning that patients get to choose their path of care, not the physician. The doctor's part in the consultations would be to present all available treatment options to the patient, including hospice and palliative care. These consultations were also meant to discuss the important task of planning ahead with advance directives or living wills - something patients of all ages should be considering. The intent was for the patient to have the opportunity to learn about end-of-life options and choose the treatment plan that suits their personal goals and beliefs.

Many physicians today are reluctant to discuss end-of-life care. They may fear that bringing up options to discontinue aggressive care or go with hospice care will be viewed as a failure on their part to "fix" the patient. Unfortunately, this sometimes means that patients continue to get care that is uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, and possibly futile without ever knowing they have another choice.

This provision in the health care reform bill would have helped facilitate important discussions between patients and their doctors so patients can make their wishes known. This would NOT have been our government's way of rationing health care or limiting what care the frail and elderly are entitled to receive.

Because this part of the health care reform bill became so controversial, the entire provision was left out of the final bill that President Obama signed on March 23, 2010.

dying.about.com...

reply to post by maybereal11


Your post and what you're cutting and pasting doesn't make any sense.

The article you quoted said:

This provision in the health care reform bill would have helped facilitate important discussions between patients and their doctors so patients can make their wishes known. This would NOT have been our government's way of rationing health care or limiting what care the frail and elderly are entitled to receive.

Again, this "end of life care" is just more progressive, liberal, marxist nonsense. Why does the government need to facilitate this discussion? The left think that people are too stupid to do these things and a government program is needed. People are smart enough to talk to their Doctors and other health care professionals on their terms about these things. We don't need a government program for this and I'm glad it wasn't included in Obamacare.

Patients can make their feelings known to Doctors without Government. What do you think people have been doing all of these years? People have been planning their end of life care without government for years.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Again, this "end of life care" is just more progressive, liberal, marxist nonsense. Why does the government need to facilitate this discussion? The left think that people are too stupid to do these things and a government program is needed.

Because people get old and are porrly used by the medical system.

And as far as Liberal, Marxist, Progressive nonsense...you really have no clue do you?

But it turns out a GOP Senator, Susan Collins, sponsored a virtually identical initiative this spring, before this became an anti-reform GOP talking point — and praised it as necessary to improving our health care system’s “care for patients at the end of their lives.”
This sharply undercuts the GOP and conservative claim — unless, of course, you believe Collins backed an initiative she thinks could lead to mass government extermination of the elderly. Though this talking point has been debunked multiple times, conservatives and GOP leaders like John Boehner continue to employ it with abandon.
On May 22nd, Senators Collins and Jay Rockefeller introduced the “Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act,” according to a press release sent over by a source. The measure provides Medicare funding “for advance care planning so that patients can routinely talk to their physicians about their wishes for end-of-life care,” the release says.

theplumline.whorunsgov.com... /

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

: swampland.blogs.time.com...

Yesterday, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein spoke with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a member of the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Isakson “co-sponsored 2007′s Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill’s Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee’s mark-up of its health care bill.” He told Klein that the “death panel” talk is “nuts”:

thinkprogress.org...

I could do this all day....