Obama Budget Rejected by House in 414-0 Vote

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I love how the same people that claim they don't fall for MSM bias eat this up.

People actually think this was "Obama's" budget.

He's president isn't he?

Really, dude? Really?

So... then you admit that Obama killed Bin Laden? People don't give him credit for all of the unrelated things that happen while he is in office so don't go linking every bad idea people come up with (this time, from a republican) to him as well.

Bunch of fair weather friends that guy has.

Oh please, please, PLEASE, quote me on that. When did I say that?

You say that a budget proposed by a republican is Obama's because Obama is president. By that rationale, everything good that has happened since November 2008 is directly because of him, as well.

Maybe you were just being glib and didn't understand the actual origins of the budget in question. That's cool. But if you did, and still felt that way, then my comparison stands.

obama is being purposely set up for a massive fall from grace. He is a fraud
and is in on the scheming. Watch ron paul rise to be the general public and media darling.
With obama's 'career' 'sabotaged', paul will be left unhindered on the path towards
the white house. It is not a mystery to me why republican candidates in the
presidential nomination race are so damn appalling, and so very obviously so.
Same goes with the only too obvious media blackout of ron paul. We are being set up.

But don't be suckered in. paul offers change within the system, when it is the system
itself that has to change. I fear he, and his policies and common sense, are being
offered to the people as another false hope, and a distraction.
And then comes the Event.

9/11 was a conspiracy (at least) since the inception of the idea of the twin towers.
It was the biggest mass fraud in history, a huge risk and an ambitiously faked means
to a greater end.
2012 is 11 years after 2001. The risks were huge, so the rewards must be huge, and I
believe that whatever these players have had in mind for so long for the end, is all
about to be played out.
They have printed all the money, and bought up the world (and a hell of alot of people).

Now for the finale.

All the rest of this is BS, simply a bunch of role-playing conspirators acting out
their masters scripted and ficticious narratives.

Everything we are told about Everything in the main stream media is ridiculous fiction.

reply to post by spyder550

My proposal?

Simple. If we want nationalized health care, then let's have nationalized health care. Raise taxes to cover the cost and make all healthcare government paid. Don't tell people they have to buy a service just because they exist. That is a tax, regardless of what Obama wants to call it, which goes to private industry rather than the government.

Private industry should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to tax the citizens. Private industry should never, ever, under any circumstances, have access to tax revenues (as in the bailouts). That is wrong, immoral, and un-American.

If we don't want nationalized health care, then we have to look at regulation geared toward decreasing the cost... as in limitations on prices charged for certain services or requiring free healthcare for the poor as a condition of holding a medical practitioner license. i really don't like that idea so much because the details have plenty of room for devils, but it is better than an unfunded mandate on the citizenry.

I do have a plan that I believe would work, and it is somewhere in the ATS archives. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

Bottom line is that just because we have a problem, it still makes no sense to do something just because we want things to change. Change can be either good or bad, and bad change makes matters worse.

TheRedneck

ETA: Here is my idea of a serious healthcare plan.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by spyder550

My proposal?

Simple. If we want nationalized health care, then let's have nationalized health care. Raise taxes to cover the cost and make all healthcare government paid. Don't tell people they have to buy a service just because they exist. That is a tax, regardless of what Obama wants to call it, which goes to private industry rather than the government.

If you recall, the president originally wanted it to be nationalized, then tried to give a public option. The current mandate is a result of the GOP not accepting either and it was pretty much their idea. That's the irony. They didn't want Obama's plan so they wanted a privatized option... thus the ridiculous mandate we have now.

Now, who are the biggest opponents of the mandate? The GOP! Crazy.

In any case, I mean to look at your link to see what your idea for healthcare is. But I totally agree with you; if you want nationalized medicine (which I do), then you better make it nationalized. This whole mandate is only acceptable by me because I hope it will evolve into something better. Shooting it down will just make it hard to approach again. I can hear it now, ten years from now, anybody bringing up any sort of improvement to our healthcare system will be derisively called an "Obama Socialist" or something.

I'd rather see it stick but I'm glad the court case is happening if only to open the discussion again. It is flawed but it is something.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by spyder550

My proposal?

Simple. If we want nationalized health care, then let's have nationalized health care. Raise taxes to cover the cost and make all healthcare government paid. Don't tell people they have to buy a service just because they exist. That is a tax, regardless of what Obama wants to call it, which goes to private industry rather than the government.

Private industry should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to tax the citizens. Private industry should never, ever, under any circumstances, have access to tax revenues (as in the bailouts). That is wrong, immoral, and un-American.

If we don't want nationalized health care, then we have to look at regulation geared toward decreasing the cost... as in limitations on prices charged for certain services or requiring free healthcare for the poor as a condition of holding a medical practitioner license. i really don't like that idea so much because the details have plenty of room for devils, but it is better than an unfunded mandate on the citizenry.

I do have a plan that I believe would work, and it is somewhere in the ATS archives. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

Bottom line is that just because we have a problem, it still makes no sense to do something just because we want things to change. Change can be either good or bad, and bad change makes matters worse.

TheRedneck

ETA: Here is my idea of a serious healthcare plan.

edit on 3/30/2012 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)

I hate to tell you that that is what the democrats want -- 1 universal medicare 2 public option 3 mandate.

The republicans - the Heritage Foundation invented the mandate. I want universal healthcare. The mandate was the only thing that the republicans would let pass.

I guess you are a democrat. Welcome to the club!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by spyder550
The republicans didn't vote for it because it was a democratic budget. The democrats didn't vote for it because the republicans were trying to tinker with it and that tinkering would screw the middle class.

edit on 30-3-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

meant to ad a citation

thehill.com...

This was not a no confidence vote it was a vote to protect the middle class from the republican concept of tax the middle and get rid on the safety net.

She said that Mulvaney’s amendment is a dangerous “shell that could be filled with a number of things that could hurt our economy and hurt the middle class.”

“While Congressman Mulvaney’s amendment aims for many of the same top-line numbers as the president’s budget, he puts forward no specifics or ways about how he would reach these targets,” she said. “For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires, his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class. And rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs.”

I posted this earlier THIS IS WHY THE democrats didn't vote for this bill -- because it had a stupid amendment attached to it.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Here's the problem: government regulations on private enterprise that increase the cost of perfecting and making the products raise the price. As the price rises, other sources from other nations begin to fill the gap between "I want" and "I can afford". One role of government is to level this playing field through the use of tariffs to protect its own industry, but of course we don't do that. Instead, we watch while companies move overseas and cheer because finally those 'rich guys' are getting their 'just deserts'. They are; they are making their products at a lower cost with less regulations and making more profit since we still buy them.

We, on the other hand, no longer have the jobs that enterprise provided. And since that means more people on social programs, it means more cost for the taxpayers, which are now fewer in number.

Yeah, go Obama! We haven't destroyed the whole economy yet... keep trying though.

TheRedneck

Very very well said, and absolutely 100% true. I sometimes wonder how and why people just cant grasp the what the governments role needs to be versus what it currently is, but everyone just stands around scratching their heads wondering why things are getting so expensive, and why things are so screwed up.

Maybe most of us feel powerless, and are waiting for it to collapse, because that's really all that is left.

reply to post by bo12au


I don't mean to be "The dick" in this conversation but we here at ATS need something more than a blog as evidence. Any assclown can put up some sort of word press blog and type what ever they want.
This is ATS and we have a level of standards that must be adhered.

reply to post by Cuervo

But I totally agree with you; if you want nationalized medicine (which I do), then you better make it nationalized. This whole mandate is only acceptable by me because I hope it will evolve into something better.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but name one time, just one program, that ever got better with time. I can't think of a single one. All I can think of became mired in red tape, developed corruption, overspent, and under-represented those they were supposed to help.

Myself, I don't like the idea of nationalized care, although I could discuss that as an option. But someone telling me that I now have to pay for insurance which I can't conceive of affording because the government said so? Nope... not even open for discussion IMHO.

TheRedneck

reply to post by spyder550

I hate to tell you that that is what the democrats want -- 1 universal medicare 2 public option 3 mandate.

I hate to tell you that I could not possibly care less what Democrats want.

The republicans - the Heritage Foundation invented the mandate. I want universal healthcare. The mandate was the only thing that the republicans would let pass.

I also hate to tell you that I could not possibly care less what the Republicans want.

I guess you are a democrat. Welcome to the club!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope, not a Democrat. Not a Republican. I am an AMERICAN.

This is not a football game between Alabama and Auburn. This is serious stuff we're discussing here. If you want to have a football discussion, I'll yell "Roll Tide!" while the NCAA is investigating violations. I'll scream "War Chicken!" while Auburn actually wins a game (you know this is hypothetical, right? ). But do not expect me to 'root' for either of the political teams. I like some Republicans; I despise some Republicans. I like some Democrats; I despise some Democrats (Obama chief among them atm). In all my life, I have never once even been tempted to vote for a party. I have never pulled the party lever.

I voted for Reagan because Carter couldn't get the job done. I voted for Big Bush because I thought Reagan did a decent job. I voted against Clinton because I didn't trust him, only to realize later that he wasn't that bad. I voted for Lil Bush once, and was so upset with him that I actually did not vote for President in the 2004 race. And I voted for Obama because McCain opened his mouth and shoved his foot in up to his neck days before the election.

I voted for our present Governor Bentley, a Republican, and am glad I did. I voted against our Republican State Senator, Shadrack McGill, because he was a crook... and the people who voted for him because he had an 'R' next to his name are now realizing that.

It's time to get rid of this donkey vs. elephant mess. The party is as irrelevant as the color of the candidate's hair. What is important is their character and their ideas. When the majority of the people wake up to this fact, we might have a chance to save whatever is left, if anything, of this once-great country.

Until then, keep watching the cheerleaders.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Cuervo

But I totally agree with you; if you want nationalized medicine (which I do), then you better make it nationalized. This whole mandate is only acceptable by me because I hope it will evolve into something better.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but name one time, just one program, that ever got better with time. I can't think of a single one. All I can think of became mired in red tape, developed corruption, overspent, and under-represented those they were supposed to help.

Myself, I don't like the idea of nationalized care, although I could discuss that as an option. But someone telling me that I now have to pay for insurance which I can't conceive of affording because the government said so? Nope... not even open for discussion IMHO.

TheRedneck

You got me there. I guess by "get better" I mean that I want it to stay on the table for discussion. If it gets knocked down completely, I'm just afraid that the subject will be taboo for years and it won't ever get better. Ultimately, it is privatized insurance that is the biggest evil for our healthcare system which is why I don't like the mandate anymore than the next guy but... I just don't want to close the doors on healthcare reform.

By the way, I read your other thread. I'd take socialized medicine or your plan any day over what we have now. Unfortunately, if healthcare reform become bad words, neither concepts will ever see the light of day.

reply to post by Cuervo

That's the whole problem: Obama's plan isn't health care reform... it's health insurance reform, and biased in favor of the insurers. Never in the history of the world has an insurance company healed anyone of anything.

That's why I refer to it as Obamacare instead of health care reform... it's simply not health care reform.

TheRedneck

I find it extremely difficult to read anything with the words "Obama" and "budget" in the same sentence.
Still, it's a major blow, especially to his massive ego.
Next step is to label the entire House as racists. The sad thing is many will agree.

Originally posted by minor007
I think the true culprits are those people who want to spend as little money as possible and to get the highest return on the money they just spent.

edit on 30-3-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not but if you aren't living by those standards wth are you doing? That sounds like the mission statement for politicians. Of course you should want to do these things. Why waste money and then complain about the guy in front of you who didn't waste money. Capital is earned from savings and the most efficient way to do that is spend as little and get the highest return on your money..the most bang for your bucks sound familiar? Just cause you got some money don't mean you have to spend it.

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Regulations -- If there are no regulations on business then competition is tough. It is hard to remain in a market and produce quality widgets if your competitors are allowed to produce in possibly and as experience shows probably more harmful manner ---- You have no right to complain about regulations and complain at the same time that China is sending toys painted with lead paint. Without regulations you can not complain about anything really -- Actually with no regulations no company is liable for anything. I hope you are never wronged in that world because there is no recourse. But the free market. "My kid has lead poisoning -- freemarket solution dont buy that product again, good luck with the next kid because you have no way to know if a product has or hasn't lead. I know it is hard for people who see everything in Black and White but really try and envision your daily life with out regulations. Your neighbors septic tank over flowing -- tough. The food your buying -- will it make you sick. The snake oil the "doctor" (no regulation no doctor) is giving you will it do anything at all.

With a government not bought by the corporations you can sue them. If you sell me something and it harms me such as lead and I can link it back to you....that's a lawsuit you just harmed me Some regulations is needed and some are not but the free market has some strong punishment if you break the rules..but only with a government that practices free market and this is not one we have..

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Cuervo

That's the whole problem: Obama's plan isn't health care reform... it's health insurance reform, and biased in favor of the insurers. Never in the history of the world has an insurance company healed anyone of anything.

That's why I refer to it as Obamacare instead of health care reform... it's simply not health care reform.

TheRedneck

Really now why do you think it is biased in favor of the insurance companies -- because the insurance companies bought the republicans. Same for Pharma. The goal by the democrats was for everyone to have health insurance like those 65 and over medicare. That would kill the insurance companies -- the wouldn't have it and mustered the support of the teapublicans to make sure that that didn't happen. The democrats got as much as they could, planning that it could be tweaked in the future. So what you are arguing for is EXACTLY yes EXACTLY how it has been envisioned since the 30s yes the 30s Thinking people have wanted this for almost 60 years. You don't bring up big Pharma -- Bushs cave to the pill makers. No negotiations for price like the Veterans Admin does. No funding and a bid doughnut hole (the doughnut hole has been patched by this admin)

It is interesting that everything you think is a good idea is what the democrats have been fighting for. I find that a lot here in the south. If you get into the details - it is good - if it is Obamacare it is bad. Why is that I wonder.

reply to post by spyder550

The goal by the democrats was for everyone to have health insurance like those 65 and over medicare.

Insurance is not health care. Understand that. Insurance is a promise to pay you should something unexpected happen, a way to pre-pay for catastrophic expenses which may or may not happen.

Why not take your wife to an insurance agent instead of a doctor and cut out the middleman? Obviously because the insurance agent is the middleman! If you understand economics as you claim, you understand that the existence of a middleman introduces an extra cost into the overall service. So why not cut out the need for insurance companies?

Read my plan. I do not have the government become an insurance company, nor do I demand that everyone buy anything. Insurance remains what it should be: a choice. Health care is available for everyone. The tie between those who cannot pay and higher costs for everyone is broken. And all it took to come up with this was to not play party politics.

Jesus is not a Democrat; Satan is not a Republican. Both parties are trying for the same thing: control of our lives. They just use different methods and tactics.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by spyder550

The goal by the democrats was for everyone to have health insurance like those 65 and over medicare.

Insurance is not health care. Understand that. Insurance is a promise to pay you should something unexpected happen, a way to pre-pay for catastrophic expenses which may or may not happen.

Why not take your wife to an insurance agent instead of a doctor and cut out the middleman? Obviously because the insurance agent is the middleman! If you understand economics as you claim, you understand that the existence of a middleman introduces an extra cost into the overall service. So why not cut out the need for insurance companies?

Read my plan. I do not have the government become an insurance company, nor do I demand that everyone buy anything. Insurance remains what it should be: a choice. Health care is available for everyone. The tie between those who cannot pay and higher costs for everyone is broken. And all it took to come up with this was to not play party politics.

Jesus is not a Democrat; Satan is not a Republican. Both parties are trying for the same thing: control of our lives. They just use different methods and tactics.

TheRedneck

ObamaCare if it survives would eventually transform itself into - no choice-.

The Republicans want a free market solution. - options -

We do not want to control your life.

nm

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Really what choice do you have in insurance now -- most health insurance is delivered through employers. Having employers in the health care chain is a rather unique thing left over from an old tax break in the dim an distant past.

If you are like most people who have insurance -- that insurance is picked for you -- if it sucks you are stuck with it. So choice in reality where most people live is not a factor. If by choice it means that you chose not to have insurance then there is another problem. If you solution is to be dumped in a ditch and gathered up after you are dead, that is a problem - fortunately our society had not devolved (yet) to the point where that would happen. Then you become a freeloader on the rest of the participants of -- society. If you want to put a couple of hundred thousand in an escrow account then by all means you should be able to opt out.

Now another part of the democratic equation was a public option -- different regulated carriers that you would be able to chose. Well the right couldn't tolerate that idea either -- again the rights solution was the mandate -- the solution that is working very well in Mass.

Fun fact did you know that after 3 years in the affordable healthcare plan that a state is able to come up with their own formula as long as it offers as good or better service than the Federal plan.

I dare say the republicans are not grounded in reality - with all due respect.