WorldTraveller

I agree, him and "like minded pols" didn't see an alternative route, because they were obsessed with achieving universal healthcare, despite the fact that we can't properly fiscally maintain the existing entitlement programs that are on the books as it is, So rather than look to reform the entitlements, in which we so desperately need, he went with the holy grail of Universal Health Care, with a half-baked solution that will do nothing to achieve lower health care costs. Without a doubt this law will end up exploding the federal budget, and will cause even greater stress on state governments. The argument is "well, state governments don't have to pay anything into it for another three years, then they still only have to kick in 10% of the cost" Well, I don't know if they've been paying attention, state governments have been cutting back and left-leaning states, raising taxes. So even though 10% doesn't sound like a large number as it is, where will they get the money from to achieve this? I mean they are already cutting back on teachers, firemen and police officers. What this means is that will place an additional burden on state level government, so in short, on a state level this will mean more job cuts and higher taxes. Then of course there is the fiscal federal situation. The ACA is now expected to cost the Federal government 2.8 trillion dollars from 2014-2024, so how we gonna pay for it? We have a weak economy, so lets say you eliminate the bush tax cuts for over the 250k income folks and tax an additional 2.8 trillion to pay for this bill, you don't think that has a dampening affect on the economy. You don't think that for many small business owners, who aspiring to grow, specifically restaurants, placing an additional burden to mandate health care coverage or pay fees will affect their bottom line or for that matter, job growth? You don't think that higher premiums for younger individuals is not gonna place an additional strain on their budget by mandating coverage on expensive full major medical plans? You don't believe that with the explosion of medicaid benificiaries that this won't cause overcrowding and rationing of care to a certain degree? The number one issue with healthcare today are the exploding costs. What he should of done is worked on a bill to reduce the cost of care, which in turn would of increased coverage, not universal coverage, but none the less additional coverage. Health care costs are squeezing folks and businesses, it's like a tape worm. Rather than focus on the economic part of the equation, he decided to break the budget, hurt business, and go for broke with universal health care coverage.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/18/krauthammer_you_didnt_build_it_should_be_hung_around_obama_until_end_of_his_presidency.html CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think Obama has made the gaffe of the year when he said if you created a business, you didn't build it. That phrase, 'you didn't build it' should be hung around Obama until the end of his presidency. I read the totality of the statement and it's worse if you read it all. Essentially, he has a view that is antithetical to view that the majority of the Americans have, which is that enterprise, initiative of the markets are what drive American wealth and excellence and achievements. Government is parasitic on that and lives off the excess wealth in the form of taxation. Obama has view at the heart of American excellence and achievement is government, not enterprise. And I think what Romney ought to do is take the headline in today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, 'Solyndra versus Staples.' And he has to have a simple slogan, Romney, which is, 'Obama and his administration gave you Solyndra, using your money incidentally. I and my colleagues in the free enterprise system gave you Staples with all the jobs and all the wealth and all the accrued wealth it gave to the foundations with the pension and the universities that invested with us in those enterprises.'

This was no gaffe, sure his use of words was somewhat inartful, but the underlying premise of his message remains, which is that; with the help of society and government, you (the successful business owner) are a product of government, and that you aren't any smarter or any more hard working than the rest of us, and because of government's and societies help, you owe it back to society through higher tax collections. That's it, that's the message. I don't see why liberals are attempting to walk back his comments or state that it was taken out of context. If it's something that you fervently believe in, be proud of your ideology, and say it on a bullhorn and let the chips fall were they fall.

Either way, she's an idiot

Sorry, but when you do things, you don't do things half way, you either go for it in it's totality or you go a different route. This half-ass solution will do nothing to drive down premiums, by most independent studies, premiums will rise even higher than if this bill hadn't of existed. The ones who will get hurt the most by this bill will be the young, they will end up subsidizing the cost of health insurance for all the ill. The individual market is gonna turn into a cluster !@#$ and you are gonna see all these limited indemnity benefit plans become non existent. Sure, they aren't the greatest of plans, but these plans help people who are on a budget, and now they will be deemed insufficient by government standards and many people will be forced to subsidize folks with pre existing medical conditions through very expensive full major medical plans. Says the obamabot who believes Obama is the champion of the blue collar folks. Try again skippy LOL

Says the left wing obamabot who claims Obama somehow will be the champion of the blue collar folks LOL Sure there is, and I've gone over it a million times, and I'm not gonna re litigate it again. Well before you got here, I went over in great detail in how this bill fails to address costs effectively, just because you fawn over Obama and state that it will take 10 years to effectively take hold, doesn't make it so. So spare me your bullsh*t, and rather than spout off talking points come back to me when you are ready to come back with substance. He doesn't think, he parrots.

Who are you? DiN's cousin?

It may "attempt" to address healthcare costs, but it was a half-assed attempt that falls woefully short.

This whole tax increase argument is 100% Politically motivated, and is ALL about the policy of "fairness" i.e Wealth Distribution. Recent Study came out and said that the tax increase would cost over 700k jobs, now how accurate that number is could be disputed, but what no rational thinking person could dispute is that if you take away money from an already flailing economy, specially money that would indeed impact successful small businesses, that this could somehow not be yet another obstacle for job growth. The president has no effective solutions to reinvigorate the economy, he is the most economically incompetent president to have resided in the White house, maybe ever.

Just to add what we were talking about: The Tale of Two Campaigns "One is being staged inside Washington — and President Obama is winning that one resoundingly. The other is set in the rest of the country — and that one is a dead heat between Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. That disconnect was driven home with the release of three national polls on Wednesday by the New York Times/CBS, Fox News and National Public Radio. In the NYT/CBS poll, Romney took 47 percent to 46 percent for Obama; the NPR poll put the race at Obama 47 percent, Romney 45 percent, and Fox News gave Obama a four-point edge. The tightness of those three surveys is consistent with polling over the last month despite the fact that Romney has seemingly had one of the worst periods of his general election campaign, buffeted by questions about when he left Bain Capital and why he won’t release more of his tax returns." "Not only have most voters made their minds up but they have also seemingly decided that this election is about the economy — first, second and third. In Gallup polling, two-thirds of people said the most important issue facing the country is economic-related ( jobs, budget deficit, etc.) while 43 percent named non-economic issues. And, on that economic front President Obama is clearly struggling. Just 39 percent in the NYT-CBS survey approved of how he is handling the economy while 55 percent disapproved. That’s a marked change from April when Obama’s economic approval (44%) and disapproval (48%) ratings ran far closer. Another troubling number for Obama: 51 percent of people in the NYT-CBS poll say that a president “can do a lot” to make the economy better, up 10 points from those who said the same in September 2011." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/a-tale-of-two-campaigns/2012/07/19/gJQAP6kxvW_blog.html?hpid=z2 This is the point I've been hammering away at some of you hard heads, this election is about the economy, the more the Obama campaign focuses on Mitt's tax returns, the more he loses ground, simply because those independent swing voters that they are both fighting for, couldn't give a flying flip about Mitt's tax returns relative to who can improve their lives. Also, Cilliza from WAPO may as well replace the word "Washington Beltway" with "Mainstream media" In the mainstream media, Romney has been getting killed, but at the end of the day, it hasn't made a significant difference.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-president-obamas-reelection-is-no-sure-thing--in-2-charts/2012/07/18/gJQAXWWwtW_blog.html From yesterday

Probably wasn't part of the PPO network

I mean, the strategy works to a degree (mainly with left leaners and left leaning independents), look at B-Large, he's asking this exact same question, hook line and sinker, yet the IRS has already looked into Mitts tax returns, and if there was something nefarious or illegal, it would of been identified.

Everyone loves benefits. If you ask people, "hey, don't you like that the law pays for ________?" The answer will almost always be "yeah, that sounds good" But when you combine that with what "hey, don't you like that the law pays for _______? But it will inhibit job creation from small employers and that it will burden state budgets which will lead to higher state taxes and less jobs for teachers, firefighters, police offers, a possible rationing of care and an increase in the national debt" Then the answer is "well, when you put it that way, no" That's why you always here, "well when you poll the individual portions of the law, it poll tests well" Well No Sh*t! everyone likes to hear the benefits, its the cost of those benefits that put everything back into its real perspective.

No you're not wrong, but that's what "they" would like for you to ponder.

I happen to agree with you, all this does is rile up the base, it has no impact on swing voters.

Sorry, I don't think that way, I vote on substance, not hypothetical scenarios of what may or may not be in someones tax returns or if there is some sort of conspiracy if the candidate was born in the US or Indonesia. That is a game for fools. I vote on who I believe will lead us to a more vibrant economy, fix our entitlements and move us to a more sustainable fiscal debt situation. And it looks like you aren't gonna get what you want Read Ann's lips: No new tax returns By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/19/12 8:30 AM EDT In an ABC appearance, Mrs. Romney says the public and the press have been given quite enough personal financial information already: Ann Romney dismissed concerns about her husband’s tax returns Thursday, contending that the two of them have “given all you people need to know.” “You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” the potential first lady said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.” “We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” she added later. So now what are you gonna do? Change your original No vote towards Mitt?

Doesn't matter, I hope that the Obama campaign continues to obsess about Mitt's tax returns (Who AGAIN, is following the law), because it is proof positive that these tactics aren't working. Polling is moving in mitts favor, not just in the national polls but in the battleground states, and again I will make this point, this is after there has been maniacally obsessive media coverage from the mainstream media that has been brutal to Mitt along with a huge spending advantage of negative ads against mitt in the battleground states. And what do they have to show for it? Polls moving in Mitts direction So please, keep focusing on what Mitts tax returns, it will undoubtedly lead to a new president, if they continue down this road.

Oh yeah, well I can certainly tell you that I mocked those who asked for Obamas birth certificate, and guess what? The majority of the public didn't care about it in 2008 and don't care about it now.

I'm not concerned about it, and why could that be? Because he's following the law. So again, while the media and their eager viewers (who lean left) obsess about Mitt's tax returns, who is following the law, the majority of the electorate will focus on who can lead this nation to a better outcome.

Who said "sheeple"? And if my response regarding the media spoon feeding this relatively insignificant point of data offends you, then sorry bud, thats not my problem. It is what is. So, while you, who never had any intention for voting for Mitt as it is are offended by Mitt not releasing his taxes, well tough titty, and frankly, this issues falls WAAAAAAAAAY down the totem poll of what voters care about.

The conservative critique doesn't have so much to do with releasing them for reasons of transparency as much as it has to do with their perceptions of this damaging his run to the whitehouse. There is a distinction, and I am fairly confident now that Mitt has been effectively on the attack over the past couple days, Obama's telling view of the role and government and private sector and recent polling data moving in Mitts direction is gonna shut this down. The narrative will no longer be about taxes

Some speedy walkback from the Democratic National Committee after Republicans cried foul over videos mocking the Romneys' dressage horse: “Our use of the Romneys’ dressage horse was not meant to offend Mrs. Romney in any way, and we regret it if it did,” DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told ABC News. In the video, the dancing horse was meant to imply that Romney was dancing around questions related to his tax returns. “We were simply making a point about Governor Romney’s failure to give straight answers on a variety of issues in this race. We have no plans to invoke the horse any further to avoid misinterpretation,” Woodhouse said. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/ aww that's too bad, Don't worry Lybob, I'm sure you've got plenty of mitts dressage jerk off material in your vast collection of youtube videos

Thats the narrative that the media would like to spoon feed to some of their viewers, unfortunately for them and their Democratic allies/operatives, more people care about who can lead this country to a more prosperous state. He's released two tax returns, which is the same as McCain, and by law, that is all he is required to do.

Thats some funny sh*t there fellas hehe Marco Rubio, as usual, this morning was "He was being honest about what he feels, and that's what we've been saying all along. He's not a believer in the American, free enterprise system. .... But the fundamental fact is that this president believes, at his core and has always believed, that the way the economy grows is when he and government have more power to take money and redistribute it into the economy. They've always believed that." Spot on!