Two Faced Democrats(I know its redundant)

bluegrass · Post by **bluegrass** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:33 am

Everyone knows that the democrats are proposing shoving down our throats this so called health care bill even though polls show its not wanted. They insist we are too stupid to know whats good for us, therefore its incumbent upon them to pass this for the greater good. The latest option is whats been called the "Nuclear Option" or most recently "Reconciliation"...the democrats say they will use this option of passing the bill by only 51 votes under a procedure which doesn't allow a filibuster. Democrats say its a good thing to do...

HOWEVER, back in 2005, before they took control of Congress they said THIS...

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Two faced is too good of a description for these scumbags.

Tony

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:20 pm

Boehner, since John Boehner has been the guy telling us for months now that the health reform plan is too long.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: Nineteen hundred and ninety pages.

. Now, tell me how we`re going to fix our health care system with 1,990 pages of bureaucracy.

Speaker Pelosi`s 1,990-page bill is going to raise the cost of health insurance.

The best way to get a sense of what Speaker Pelosi`s take of health care looks like is to actually look at it. Just shy of , it 2,000 pages runs more than 620 pages longer than the government-run plan Hillary

Clinton proposed in 1993. The best way to get a sense of this bill, he says, is just look at it, the size of it, all 1,990 pages of it See what`s on those- See what`s on those pages doesn`t matter. The horrible truth is just how many pages there are.

This has not just been a rogue John Boehner complaint, though. This has been a tried and true Republican talking point all along..

REP. JOHN DUNCAN (R), TENNESSEE: The bill that we apparently will vote on later this week is 1,990 pages of bureaucratic gobbly goop.
: This bill that`s before us, this 2,000 pages, does affect us from conception to natural death because it funds abortion and it .has death panels.=A FLAT OUT LIE=

REP. JACK KINGSTON (R), GEORGIA: Mr. Speaker, I know you and so many others have been spending their weekends reading this 1,990-page monstrosity.

: We`re here today in opposition to Speaker Pelosi`s 1,990-page government takeover of health care. I can tell you it`s a lot pages. It`s about 20 pounds I`m holding up here.: This is the Pelosi health care bill, 1,990 pages.
Nobody in this place has even come close to reading it. That was then. Health reform is just too long.
Now,
John Boehner, top House Republican, says that health reform is just too short. It is beginning to feel like John Boehner`s vehement
opposition to health reform is only being outdone by John Boehner`
vehement opposition to John Boehner. For example, this health bipartisan health,reform summit at the White House on Thursday is something that John Boehner number one sort of demanded.

BOEHNER: There has been no attempt, not one attempt by administration or the Democrats in Congress to actually sit down and work down and work with us
.
John Boehner number one, you`ve asked for some type of summit, now you got it. Other John Boehner, what do you think?

BOEHNER: I don`t want to walk into some setup. I don`t know who`sgoing to be there. I don`t know how big the room`s going to be. I don`t know how -- what the setup`s going to be.

Then there`s the issue of secrecy. John Boehner number one has been calling for full transparency in these negotiations -- let the cameras in.

BOEHNER: The president, during the campaign last year, has said that when we got to this part of the process that it`d be a big open room and he`d invite the C-SPAN cameras in so the American people could see how this bill was coming together. I do think it`s time to let the American people see what`s going on.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: What do you make of the fact it`s televised? The American people are probably delighted that we`re getting this televised.

BOEHNER: I think that`s fine. But, you know, is this a political event, or is this going to be a real conversation?

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, except that we`ve been hammering them about the transparencey
BOEHNER: I don`t -- know

VAN SUSTEREN:=FOX = The president said, you know, he`s going to put everything on C-SPAN, so we can`t criticize him now for when he finally does put it on C-SPAN==Hippocrit==

BOEHNER: Fine. I`m going to make sure that we`re going to have an honest conversation.

John Boehner is not going to like that.
John Boehner number one, John Boehner number one[/b] has also
been arguing repeatedly that Republican ideas must be included in health reform. Remember that?

BOEHNER: Republicans have much better ideas, I think. They will take the current system and make it work better.

. So, many of those much better ideas are now in the current plan. The White House explaining that chapter and verse on their Web site right now, how Republican ideas are in the plan.

John Boehner number one, you got what you want. You got the Republican ideas in the plan.Which means, other John Boehner ==

BOEHNER: I would hope that the president would heed our call. Let`s scrap the bill.=AFTER HE WANTED TO DESIGN THE BILL=
Let`s scrap the bill. That other guy got what he wanted. IOne thing is clear here: ---------------------------------------John Boehner is totally unafraid of taking
himself on. And in the process, he`s winning -- and he`s losing, depending on which John Boehner you`re talking about
At the big White House bipartisan health care summit on Thursday, which John Boehner is expected to attend, we`re all left wondering which John Boehner should we expect: Will it be John Boehner number one or will it be the other John Boehner?I am starting to worry that a John Boehner divided against itself cannot stand.
=
=THIS IS BAD BECAUSE ALL OF THE =ELECTED REPUBLICAN'S= ARE DOING THE SAME THING TALKING OUT= BOTH END'S =THERE IS NO END TO THE =HIPPOCRACY=THEY SPREAD=IN FACT THE LIE SO MUCH THEY FORGET WHAT THEY HAVE SAID AND FORGET THEY ARE ON CAMERA==IT IS SO BAD NOW THAT= JOHN MC CAIN =HAS CHAINGED DIRECTION SEVERAL TIMES AFTER GETTING CAUGHT IN HIS LIES= NO ONE= EVEN KNOW'S WHAT A REPUBLICAN= IS ANY MORE =I KNOW THEY DON'T.
=
======SO IF YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH A PERSON WHO LIE'S WHAT DID YOU GAIN=JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS======
=====AND IF YOU CHANGE DIRECTION WITH EVERY STEP, WHER WILL YOU GO =JUST LIKE REPUBLICAN=POLITICIAN'S=====

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:43 pm

GOP Senators Who Used Budget Reconciliation To Pass Bush Agenda Items Now Calling It ‘Chicago Style Politics’
=
=
Today, Republican senators are prepared to go “nuclear” — essentially shutting down the Senate through the use of parliamentary maneuvers — if President Obama attempts to use budget reconciliation to pass key parts of his legislative agenda, such as health care reform and cap-and-trade. Reconciliation allows some legislation to be protected from filibusters and passed by a simple majority. On NPR this morning, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) repeated a now familiar attack on budget reconciliation:

BOND: “In this post-partisan time of Barack Obama, we’re seeing a little Chicago politics. They steamroller those who disagree with them, then, I guess in Chicago, they coat them in cement and drop them in the river.” [NPR, 3/24/09]

Bond appears to be parroting his colleague Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who said any use of budget reconciliation by President Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans, and likened it to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.” Other GOP senators have chimed in against reconciliation, with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) calling it a “purely partisan exercise” and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) saying it “would be a mess.”

Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items (which were supported by all four aforementioned Senators):

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

As ThinkProgress has noted, Gregg defended using the reconciliation procedure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for domestic drilling in 2005, arguing, “The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for.” Evidently, Gregg has lost the same sense of patriotic duty.

While Republicans seem to be experiencing a particular form of political amnesia from the Bush years, they ought to be reminded that budget reconciliation has been used by several other presidents, including Clinton and Reagan. In fact, Republicans — with Bond and Gregg among the leaders of the charge — were instrumental in pushing through key provisions of their signature legislative agenda, the Contract with America, using budget reconciliation.

A list of instances where reconciliation was implemented:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
=
=MORE TWO FACED HIPPOCRACY=IT SEEM'S THAT ONLY THE REPUBLICAN'S ARE CAPABLE OF KNOWING WHAT'S BEST.
=SO THEY SAY=

bluemouse · Post by **bluemouse** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:15 pm

well the dems have shown us their best and we are going backwards pinenut- i know its bushes fault- its the rep fault because they wont fall into the progressive movement la la bla blah blah, call chief he will give you a hug

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:47 pm

by bluemouse on Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:15 am

well the dems have shown us their best and we are going backwards pinenut- i know its bushes fault- its the rep fault because they wont fall into the progressive movement la la bla blah blah, call chief he will give you a hug.
=
=YOU CAN'T FALL IN IF YOU AREN'T THERE,=THE DEMOCRAT'S ARE NOT DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO I WON'T ARGUE THAT.BUT A LITTLE HELP SURE COULDN'T HURT..

Tim H · Post by **Tim H** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:35 pm

Pine Mt Beagles wrote:A list of instances where reconciliation was implemented:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

To bring home the point that reconciliation is a BUDGET procedure and not a LEGISLATIVE procedure. All of the times it was used in the past were BUDGET bills and NOT LEGISLATIVE. It was being properly used in the past by both Democrats and Republicans when used for Budgets. When Bush wanted to use it on his budget is when the Democrats started calling it the nuclear option as part of their fear mongering to try to scare the U.S. citizens. Now they want to use it on legislation. Keep this truth in mind when you hear congressmen, the President and wackos talk about who the hypocrites are and what position they are taking on the truth.

bluegrass · Post by **bluegrass** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:36 am

Tim H wrote:
Pine Mt Beagles wrote:A list of instances where reconciliation was implemented:

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
To bring home the point that reconciliation is a BUDGET procedure and not a LEGISLATIVE procedure. All of the times it was used in the past were BUDGET bills and NOT LEGISLATIVE. It was being properly used in the past by both Democrats and Republicans when used for Budgets. When Bush wanted to use it on his budget is when the Democrats started calling it the nuclear option as part of their fear mongering to try to scare the U.S. citizens. Now they want to use it on legislation. Keep this truth in mind when you hear congressmen, the President and wackos talk about who the hypocrites are and what position they are taking on the truth.

EXACTLY!!!!!

I was wondering if anyone was going to catch what was common about Rufus' post...figured it would be you Tim...

Thanks Rufus for starkly outlining my point for me!!! I know it was not your intent but the results are the same anyway. You really SHOULD read your copy and paste masterpieces before you post them if unless you intended to showcase the differences here...I highly doubt that though since that would put your precious democrats in an ugly light.

Tony

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:11 pm

GUY'S= ONCE AGAIN YOU GUY'S ARE AVOIDING THE REAL, ISSUE= AND TRYING TO SIDE TRACK===IF IT WAS NOT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE= DIEING= AND== 50% OF ALL BANK RUPTCY== IS BECAUSE OF HEALTH CARE== YOU=TWO WOULD BE FUNNY= YET YOU ARE NOT==HEALTH CARE IS THE BIGGEST PART OF THE NATIONAL BUDGETTHE SINLE BIGGEST COST TO OUR ECONOMY THEIR IS JUST NO END= TO THE HIPPOCRACY OF THE TWO FACED REPUBLICAN'S===THIS REPUBLICAN SENATE AND CONGRESS IS WORSE THAN A PLAQUE, ON THIS COUNTRY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD IMPEACH, ALL OF THEM WITH A FEW DEMOCRAT'S AS WELL...LET THEM DO WITHOUT, HEALTH CARE, ,,AND,, SIT BY A ,CHILD OR WIFE, OR HUSBAND ,AND WATCH THEM ,,DIE,, SLOWLY, WITH CANCER, BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY,SAID, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CANCER, CLAUSE IN THEIR POLICY, OR THE INSURANCE COMPANY SAID, IT WAS PRE-EXISTING==THEY HAVE THE MORAL'S OF A COPPER HEAD SNAKE,, WANT EVEN RATTLE BEFORE THEY BITE===WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN WORSE IS YOU GUY'S KNOW, HOW IMMORAL THIS IS YET YOU TRY TO DEFEND IT=PATHETIC=

Newt · Post by **Newt** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:22 pm

Rufus, the nuclear option is a procedure designed to get a budget passed in the event of a congressional deadlock. The excuse was, something had to be done to prevent the country from shutting down because without an approved budget, checks would begin to bounce.
Using it to pass a health care bill is outside the limits of the bill. Of course, we know that the constitution, according to the progressives is an invalid document. It can not be used to keep them from taking away all our freedoms.

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Two Faced Democrats(I know its redundant)
by Newt on Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:22 am

Rufus, the nuclear option is a procedure designed to get a budget passed in the event of a congressional deadlock. The excuse was, something had to be done to prevent the country from shutting down because without an approved budget, checks would begin to bounce.
Using it to pass a health care bill is outside the limits of the bill. Of course, we know that the constitution, according to the progressives is an invalid document. It can not be used to keep them from taking away all our freedoms.
=
=NEWT
I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING,=BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A NUCLEAR OPTION, IS THE REPUBLICAN'S AND TRUTH IS THEY ARE FLAT OUT LIYING,I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS HEALTH CARE BILL MYSELF AND THAT IS WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS PASS THIS BILL NINE MONTHS AGO,WHEN THE REPUBLICANS WENT ON STRIKE,,THE BEST NUMBER'S I COULD FIND SHOWED ABOUT 54000,PEOPLE DYING SINCE THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE STARTED ,,THAT ALONE IS A DISGRACE,,
=
=I WATCHED SOME OLD C-SPAN DEBATES LAST NIGHT SHOWING REPUBLICANS ARGUING FOR THE THE MAJORITY VOTE...ONLY DIFFERENCE IT WAS FOR REPUBLICAN GOOD==
=
=Definitions of Nuclear option on the Web:

In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote,

tommyg · Post by **tommyg** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:30 pm

Man Rufus you spin things better than Obama him self you should be on his staff with the rest of the Socialists.I can't imagine someone saying the Republicans are the ones wanting the NUCLEAR OPTION when that all you hear the Democruds talk about on every channel on TV.Did those 54 thousand die because of no health care?There is a law that states a hospital can deny health care to a sick person.Do you think Rationed care will save people?Have you seen any of the CBO numbers that say health care costs will go up with THIS BILL.Do you even care?I think you just try to keep thing stirred up and could care less.After all the working person has to pay to keep buying votes for the Liberals,keep them checks coming and the votes will keep coming.Liberals are a BLIGHT on America that needs cured.NOTHING MORE!

Newt · Post by **Newt** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:28 pm

Rufus, you know that the democrats had a sufficient majority in both houses to pass any bill they could agree on. So leave the republicans out of your blame. Lord knows the republicans have caused enough damage. If the republicans had acted responsibly, the demeocrats would not be in power. Hmmm? I guess we should give them some blame.

Rufus, it's people like you who are not paying their fair share that caused Obama to run out of money before he could buy enough votes to get his HC passed. You and the Chief empty your grand kids piggy banks. There are dope heads dieing before they reach the emergency room. My wife told me there was one that died the other night because the person had taken something, then had taken a pain pill given by a friend. The two pills caused a reaction and that person stopped breathing. This perticular person had ben in the ICU repeatedly for the last several months. With Obama's free health care they could have been living at the hospital and this wouldn't have happened. Don't you feel guilty that you didn't pay enough to give this person around the clock observation as they took their free drugs.

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:34 pm

18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV.
"Our purpose is simply to deliver the facts, and the facts are unequivocal," says Reed Tuckson, an author of the report and vice president for consumer health at UnitedHealth Group in Minnetonka, Minn.

Among the study's findings is a comparison .
=
=DID NOT SEE ANY OF YOUR PILL TAKING FRIENDS LISTED HERE.
=
=SOME THING THAT I HAVE FOUND SO UNUSUAL, IS THAT. REPUBLICAN'S, THAT MAKE LESS THAN 250,000.00,COULD HAVE ANY KIND OF, RATIONAL REASON, TO BE AGAINST HEALTH CARE..THEY EITHER DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS OR JUST SIMPLY DON'T CARE =!!!!!

Pine Mt Beagles · Post by **Pine Mt Beagles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:44 pm

COULD IT BE =====
Don't Punish the Desire for Wealth?

There has been a lot of conversation lately about Obama's tax plan that has inspired the battle cry of "punishing the people who are successful". Now, it's been argued that a tax break for those who earn less than $250,000 per household, or $200,000 per unmarried individual per year is in some way telling people not to be successful, and not to earn a lot of money. By "punishing" those who do earn that much money per year or more, the de facto result is a push for mediocrity in the other income brackets.

This is a silly notion, for a few reasons.

First of all, very few US households bring in $250,000 per year or more, according to Factcheck those households account for about 2 - 3.1 percent of the population.

For simplicity, we'll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office.[...]Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year.
=
In a capitalist economy such as the US, the economic hierarchy is set up in "classes" , or income brackets. In order for a capitalist economy to work properly, all of the economic brackets must be filled by the appropriate ratio of people.

If everyone earned what the top earners did, who would be left to man the factories, clean the schools, and sweep the streets? Not everyone can earn top dollar, and, if companies opted to pay out top dollar for even the most rudimentary jobs, than the prices of products, and cost of living expenses would rise accordingly, and those earning $250,000 per year would then remain in the same economic bracket as they had been in previously, because the top earners would be paid proportionately more than them.
=
=DIDN'T KNOW I WAS DEBATING WITH SUCH AN =ELETE GROUP=,NO WONDER I GET LOOKED DOWN ON SO MUCH===

Tim H · Post by **Tim H** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:49 am

Pine Mt Beagles wrote:=IF IT WAS NOT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE= DIEING= AND== 50% OF ALL BANK RUPTCY== IS BECAUSE OF HEALTH CARE== YOU=TWO WOULD BE FUNNY= YET YOU ARE NOT==HEALTH CARE IS THE BIGGEST PART OF THE NATIONAL BUDGETTHE SINLE BIGGEST COST TO OUR ECONOMY

All of this is happening under a DEMOCRAT lead House, DEMOCRAT lead Senate and a Democrat President. Who for 1 FULL YEAR have not done anything about it. TALK ABOUT THE DO NOTHING PARTY!!!!!!

Oh wait, that's the viewpoint from reality, we need to look at it from Pine Nuts perspective, it's the Republicans fault.