|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-29-2010, 10:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Frightening expansion" is your opinion, certainly not fact, and not really supported by any evidence if you are referring to healthcare reform (not even a public option) Not really sure what "frightening expansion" you are talking about. The labor union comment is nothing more than a dig. The "trillion dollar entitlement program" will cut the deficit by quite a bit, won't it? Trillion or so? But it isn't filled with many 'entitlements' at all, is it? Yes, his SC appointee is left of center. What do you think about all the "Bush" he's continued unabated?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts 
|
|
#2
03-30-2010, 05:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Only someone with their eyes closed wouldnt admit his far left stance on labor. Banking on the fiction that the deficit being cut doesnt make the program any less liberal. The public option wasnt included because it couldnt pass with it. pretending that it was dropped for any other reason is myopic. Obama is not a centerist know matter how hard you want to believe it.
|
|
#3
03-30-2010, 10:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Today he's signing in student loan reforms. This will save our country money, and encourage more students to attend college. I'm sure some will characterize this as a government takeover of education 
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
03-30-2010, 11:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The President hasnt given organized labor anything? LOL. It will "save our country money"? I love generalized, unsubstantiated quotes like this. Sounds nice but in the end is bs. Since Govt is already in charge of the vast majority of education it has already taken it over. But they have taken over the student loan business. It isnt a "reform", it is a takeover. Last edited by Cannon Shell : 03-30-2010 at 02:33 PM.
|
|
#5
03-30-2010, 02:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#6
03-30-2010, 02:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...FTSecondBucket
Another explanation on why the bill will not pay for itself or reduce national debt
|
|
#7
03-30-2010, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
03-30-2010, 08:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So? Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#9
03-30-2010, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#10
03-30-2010, 08:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yeah I'm talking crazy....
|
|
#11
03-30-2010, 08:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#12
03-31-2010, 07:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Can you argue that the Student Loan program wasn't in need of a complete takeover from it's current state? http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/cr...lted/19417573/
|
|
#13
03-31-2010, 08:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It such a good bill it should have been pass on its own - oh wait the Heath Bill needed the "savings" in the SL Program to make it pass the smell of deficit reduction. 
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
|
|
#14
03-31-2010, 10:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I guess some are angry the middlemen banks, who essentially have been making a rather generous profit for nothing much other than doing a bit of paperwork, are now cut out of the gravy train? The banks were taking no risk - they were loaning government money, the loans were insured by the government, and the payments went back to the government. They were simply a profit-taking middle man. Obama cutting government waste and streamlining a massive government program - that's something to get angry about or disagree with?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#15
03-31-2010, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I predict that the student loan deal will be a debacle, and people will wish that they could deal with a bank. In this case the middleman provided a service. The government can't even conduct a car sale last summer, or run a window caulking program without spending double or triple the estimate and taking much longer. you'd think after 100% of government programs either fail or go bust people would start to put 2 and 2 together. How about our department of energy. started under Carter in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. at the time we imported 40% of our oil. now 30 years later we import 70% of our oil and this department has a budget of 26 billion and employs 16,000. a smashing success! I can't wait until they've worked their magic on the healthcare industry.
|
|
#16
03-31-2010, 01:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The bill was touted as saving $61 billion over 10 years yet that doesnt take into consideration the new $77 billion in spending that it calls for. Net loss. Then there is this... "CBO explained that "savings" estimates are artificially high because of government accounting rules that undercount the risks of default when the government is originating the loans, while the new spending estimates are artificially low. Many colleges oppose the government plan specifically because the feds don't make the same effort to prevent defaults that the private lenders do." and this... "Both the House-passed bill and the President's budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending. Mr. Obama's budget also calls for making Pell Grants a mandatory entitlement. At least now they are subject to annual appropriation and their growth can be slowed when tax revenues fall or other priorities rate higher." And of course there is this... "Various changes that the President proposes to the Pell Grant program would add another $0.2 trillion to the deficit between 2011 and 2020," CBO said Friday. That could turn out to be a very optimistic estimate if unemployment remains high and more people seize the educational opportunity to which they have just become entitled. Still another taxpayer trap will be sprung with the President's proposal to forgive some debt incurred by "overburdened" borrowers. And how exactly is this going to be a money saver? In addition, borrowers in the income-based repayment program who make payments for 20 years will be eligible to have the balance of their loan forgiven. Currently, graduates in the program are eligible for loan forgiveness after 25 years. Plus the public service exemption after 10 years are employed by any nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization; are employed by the federal government, a state government, local government, or tribal government (this includes the military and public schools and colleges); or serve in a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position have their debt wiped away So in effect we are "saving" money by taking federally backed loans away from the banks yet will wind up spending far more than saved since the Pell grant program has mandatory increases, we will be eating a whole lot more of the unpaid debt with the forgiveness program and the sure to be wasteful govt beaurcracy that adminsters this entire deal. Was the old system a good one? Probably not. Is the new system going to be cheaper or more efficent? Not a chance.
|
|
#17
03-30-2010, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please dont let this rub you the wrong my question for you is the following: Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt this new helathcare bill mandates that everyone has to have health insurance? Isnt that a way of the government trying to control healthcare.
|
|
#18
03-30-2010, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We are still the only first-world country without government-run healthcare. If Obama was governing from the left, we'd have a public option.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#19
03-31-2010, 07:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
uhh the president did want a public option. he asked for it especially at first and then backed off when the SENATE wouldnt approve a public option. You just proved he's governing from the left, lefty.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#20
03-31-2010, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Because then the Senate and House each passed their own versions of healthcare reform. Then the House voted upon and approved the Senate version, with reconcilation measures. Then the bill with reconciliation measures went back to the Senate. Then the Senate Paralimentarian did find a couple things that sent it back to the House. At that point, there were definitively enough House votes for a public option, and there definitively enough Senate votes for a public option (for when they got the bill back again) In the two weeks leading up to the reconcilation voting process, the progressive Dems pushed hard for a public option, and Obama told them to not put it back in there, even though the votes were clearly and easily there when simple majority was counted in the Senate (and the House version had already passed with a public option intact) So what was passed for healthcare reform isn't even as "left" as what the Republicans presented, when they countered Clinton's healthcare reform package, and isn't even as "left" as what Richard Nixon proposed when he was President. And Obama, when the votes were clearly there, for a second time backed off on the public option. Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
Hybrid Mode
