Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you get what he is saying? The current paradigm isn't and hasnt' been working and what got your country into the financial mess it is in. The big thing here is that he recognized there is a long term problem of financial unsustainability. For so many years, your low taxes contributed to your country's debt because your leadership has spent like money was growing on trees- It has to give man. Low taxes are great for a country that operates in an efficient manner - Do you really think your country has operated in a fiscally responsible manner? No it has not and you will have to pay for that indiscretion. At the very least - you now have a President who recognizes this!
Bush did spend too much, I agree, but spending more, is simply more of the same.
0bama blamed the current crisis on bad health care decisions of the past. Which is just him braodening the current financial crisis so that the only way to bring us out of it, is to spend more money on health care. "This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades"
Every single solution 0bama has come up with involves the president creating new powers, with which he takes over control of something facet of the private sector, or spending more taxpayer money to create some new federal mandate or give-away.
At some point 0bama has to offer the private sector some motivation to get us back on track, but so far the only motivations have been "Do this or we take control of you," or the motivation is to no **** off the president for fear, if you can believe the charges, that he will have the White House press corps destroy them.
0bama's solution to lowering health care costs, will be to take it over the industry, in some way shape or form, or to create new mandates to force the health care industry to toe the 0bama line, or get squashed.
Because thats pretty much all the federal government is legally authorized to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
federal government control of liberals as solutions?
La la land posting again? Care to back up this statement with a single fact or do you not care that you come off as as someone who just lies and makes things up as you along..
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Faulty premises make ridiculous arguments.
I agree, go back to quote 1 and 2 and review your own advice.
Well it looks like he does - he says it and he hit the nail on the head. Now he has to ACT on it. People aren't going to like it if he does, but it'll be the only way. The people have to make it clear they will support his goal of financial sustainability and balancing the budget. They will have to let him know they understand there will be sacrifices and that things won't be as good as they used to but it is the only way.
0bama's current budget plans put us in more debt, "As estimated by CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the President’s proposals would add $4.8 trillion to the baseline deficits over the 2010–2019 period" - Congressional Budget Office
I'm sorry, but how is he going to balance the budget if the only solutions he sees involves more debt spending, unless he plans on huge tax increases on everyone of us? If he raises taxes, then he will slow or prevent any economic recovery at all.
We should never be out of money with the liberals controlling everything under the sun.
They spend like mad people and will then turn around and tax us to death to pay for it.
We do not need universal health care, we need jobs that will pay a decent wage so the employer can purchase insurance in bulk for their employees.
If you do not want to work then you get no health care, plain and simple.
We cannot afford free universal healthcare.
Besides it is terrible care, the government will line you up like little pigs to see if you are good enough or valuable enough to received their care.
Canada tried it and it is a complete disaster. France tried it and it about bankrupt them.
What Obama care is not telling you is this universal health care is only going to be for people who are poor and wont take any job that does not pay over 10.00 per hour or in the minorities. He is not telling the entire story on this.
If this crappy health care is so good then why doesn't he tell those of us who have decent health care that we won't be eligible under his dirty plan.
He is not telling you that if you make over a certain amount and have health care that you will not get any of the free healthcare. But he has everyone believing you will.
Keep your government healthcare. Those who do not have health care can get a free welfare card to get it anyway. Now we need to figure out a way for the welfare people to pay us back our money.
PRESIDENT OBAMA DISCUSSES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ISSUES IN EXCLUSIVE C-SPAN INTERVIEW" ButAsForMe (http://www.butasforme.com/2009/05/24/president-obama-discusses-foreign-and-domestic-issues-in-exclusive-c-span-interview/ - broken link)
So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it’s too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can’t afford it. We’ve got this big deficit. Let’s just keep the health care system that we’ve got now.
Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything.[excluded part begins here >] That’s the wrong option.
I think the right option is to say, where are the game changers, the investments that we can make now that are going to reduce costs, even if they don’t reduce them this year or next year, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we are going to see substantially lower costs.
And if - one of the very promising areas that we saw was these insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, all these stakeholders coming together, committing to me that they would reduce costs by 1.5 percent per year.
If we do that, it seems like small number, we end up saving $2 trillion. $2 trillion, which not only can help deal with our deficit and our long-term debt, but a lot of those savings can go back into the pockets of American consumers in the form of lower premiums. That’s what we are driving for.[<end excluded part]
Canada tried it and it is a complete disaster. France tried it and it about bankrupt them.
You obviously don't know anything about the Canadian healthcare system to make a statement like that. We pay alot less as a percentage GDP for healthcare than the U.S --- ALOT! I will also add that if the healthcare system was an unequivocal disaster, why than for both men and women - life expectancy in Canada is higher by 3 years for each sex. I'm not saying the U.S should adopt Canadian Healthcare model - the countries can't use the same model because there are different challenges - but the only Disaster here is the comment you made!
Last edited by mississauga75; 05-25-2009 at 03:26 PM..
PRESIDENT OBAMA DISCUSSES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ISSUES IN EXCLUSIVE C-SPAN INTERVIEW" ButAsForMe (http://www.butasforme.com/2009/05/24/president-obama-discusses-foreign-and-domestic-issues-in-exclusive-c-span-interview/ - broken link)
So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it’s too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can’t afford it. We’ve got this big deficit. Let’s just keep the health care system that we’ve got now.
Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything.[excluded part begins here >] That’s the wrong option.
I think the right option is to say, where are the game changers, the investments that we can make now that are going to reduce costs, even if they don’t reduce them this year or next year, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we are going to see substantially lower costs.
And if - one of the very promising areas that we saw was these insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, all these stakeholders coming together, committing to me that they would reduce costs by 1.5 percent per year.
If we do that, it seems like small number, we end up saving $2 trillion. $2 trillion, which not only can help deal with our deficit and our long-term debt, but a lot of those savings can go back into the pockets of American consumers in the form of lower premiums. That’s what we are driving for.[<end excluded part]
Excellent addition!! People want to see him fail because if he is actually a liberal with sound financial principles, it would rock the foundation of their liberal stereotypes. In my country, it was the liberal government that actually balanced our books..
Agree. Why else would they go to places like Drudge for their "news"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades"
