Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@flickster

When the bill was passed we were repeatedly told how much it was going to reduce health care costs. Every CBO report that has come out since then has “readjusted” those figures upward. As in, “Oops, sorry, we F’ed that up.” Too Bad, So Sad… Plus, show me one example of a government entitlement program that has come even close to operating within the expected costs estimates.

You are changing the conversation. What I said is that the Health Care Reform may save the government money. You know, reduce deficits, cut government spending. I said nothing about healthcare costs, the effectiveness of the government to enact entitlement programs, or anything else. I think you and I would probably agree on many things in this area, but that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is how much “ObamaCare” is going to cost the government and whether those costs will be offset by savings due to the fact that everybody is going to be forced to have insurance. You can disrespect other aspects of this bill all you want, but you are wrong about the cost to the government. Oh, and just a quick question, back in the 90s when Mrs. Clinton unveiled her Health care reform plan and the Republicans unveiled the plan they thought would work better, did you like the Republican plan? Be honest now.

@flickster

Well, I have about as much faith in Reuters and the World Bank as you have in Fox.
As for the declining tax receipts/revenue, if the Administrations policies had worked as laid out, this would not have happened.

Read more closely, I never disrespected Fox News (that was someone else), I said that their article was disingenuous in comparing the deficits over the last several years as a method of comparing the costs of the wars to the stimulus. I provided evidence based on a CBO report that the costs of the wars were much higher than the Health Care bill. If you don’t trust the news articles, you can just read the CBO report here. But be careful, the CBO is a bed of partisan liberal ideology just like the World Bank. :rolleyes:

@Una_Persson

That’s somewhat deceptive - this random blogger you linked to qualifies it with “*if the U.S. Congress now sticks to PAYGO–as it did during the Clinton years[3/4 of which had a Republican House, something he somehow failed to mention, huh, nope, no partisanship there! - Una]–and doesn’t pass new programs and amendments to old programs that add to the deficit.”

What are the odds of that happening? Not very good.

To quote myself again:

@L. G. Butts

Finally, regarding your opinion that President Obama and the Democrats are not interested in saving money, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to provide a cite. At least the Democrats have tried to institute paygo polices, first with theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Democratic House and Senate, signed by President Bush breaking his campaign promise of no-new-taxes), then by Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (Democratic House, Senate and Executive) in a party line vote. These policies were continued by the Republicans in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but allowed to lapse in 2002 with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Executive. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, they made it a priority to reintroduce the pay as you go policies and made it a standing rule in the house (see page 36 of Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress (note: pdf file)). They did renege on these rules as the recession got worse and they needed to pass President Bush’s 150 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package. The rule was modified by the 111th congress to have an emergency exemption, which allowed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama. Since then, President Obama signed the Statutory Pay as You Go Act of 2010 which passed on a party line vote. So, how about you show me how the Republicans are more interested in saving money than the Democrats, because I don’t buy it.

The Democratically controlled House and Senate first established PAYGO rules in 1990 in a Bipartisan effort with the Republicans and it was signed by President Bush (breaking his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”). In 93’ these policies were continued by the Democrats in a party line vote; not a single Republican Voted for it. In 97’ the Republican controlled house and Senate continued the policies in a bipartisan fashion. In 2002 the Republican controlled house and Senate scrapped the rules so they could pass the Medicare Drug Benefit. So to sum up, I don’t think the Democrats are all that when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the meme that the Republicans are better is pure bullshit. Regarding the PAYGO rules, you ask what are the odds of them following the rules, well they need to either pass an exemption or declare and emergency to break them, what are the odds of that? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do applaude the fact that they instituted the rules, don’t you?