Obama goes to GOP lions den... and mauls the lions....

[diesel96]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html

The mauling was too much for Fox News to take, breaks away 20 minutes early to criticize Obama.
GOP sorry camera's were allowed.....Compelling TV

 

[1989]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html

The mauling was too much for Fox News to take, breaks away 20 minutes early to criticize Obama.
GOP sorry camera's were allowed.....Compelling TV

WOW....The poor guy.

 

[Bad Gas!]

I do believe Obama got a solid earfull from the GOP...It was a good idea for him to see how far apart he is from what the American people want...Yes, the American people are tired of backroom deals for healthcare and The American people want unemployment to go way down while spending goes down as well...Unless he can walk the walk, he has no merit in his talk the talk...It's time O takes a little responsibility..

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I would say each side gave as good as they got but, as Bad Gas said, it was good for him to see how far he is from what the American people want.

 

[tieguy]

It appears Obama got caught in another lie at this meeting.

Obama previously sold his health care plan as being deficit neutral and has even made claims that it would reduce the deficit.

When grilled by the republicans at this meeting he conceeded that you could not give 30 million people health care without it costing you.

Diesel I like this kind of honesty and wish Obama would do this meeting weekly.

 

[Jones]

It appears Obama got caught in another lie at this meeting.

Obama previously sold his health care plan as being deficit neutral and has even made claims that it would reduce the deficit.

When grilled by the republicans at this meeting he conceeded that you could not give 30 million people health care without it costing you.

Diesel I like this kind of honesty and wish Obama would do this meeting weekly.

"Deficit neutral" just means that it won't increase the deficit. You can pay for the plan with increased taxes and still be deficit neutral, which I assume is what he meant. On paper coming up with a deficit neutral plan is easy, all you have to do is raise taxes to pay for it. The hard part is selling that plan to the people being taxed.

 

[moreluck]

While still trying to appease all those that you promised would not have their taxes raised. It's like the old-time plate spinner trying to keep them all going at one time.

 

[wkmac]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html

The mauling was too much for Fox News to take, breaks away 20 minutes early to criticize Obama.
GOP sorry camera's were allowed.....Compelling TV

I thought they were all together to film a movie sequel although they left out another major character in the cast.

 

[tieguy]

"Deficit neutral" just means that it won't increase the deficit. You can pay for the plan with increased taxes and still be deficit neutral, which I assume is what he meant. On paper coming up with a deficit neutral plan is easy, all you have to do is raise taxes to pay for it. The hard part is selling that plan to the people being taxed.

I'm surprised to see you try to defend the liberal misinformation campaign. You're usually much more critical than that.

 

[Jones]

I'm surprised to see you try to defend the liberal misinformation campaign. You're usually much more critical than that.

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that paying for a program with a tax increase does not keep it from being deficit neutral. Telling people that a program is "going to cost you" doesn't mean it won't be deficit neutral, it just means your taxes are going to go up. If you wanted to, you could even decrease the deficit simply by raising taxes in order to pay it down directly. Good luck with that though

 

[tieguy]

In this case it was an admission by Obama that he knew it would cost us and not be deficit neutral. But I'm sure his press secrtary will smooth it over similar to
your line of defense.

 

[Jones]

Good defense. Ever think of being a press secretary?

It's OK to admit you were wrong, you know

 

[tieguy]

The Obama quote:

"If you say that we can offer coverage for all americans and it wont cost a penny, that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing"

Now you can clearly make the argument you make to explain it all in political goobly gook. But in fact the dems made a clear effort to inform the public that we could cover everyone on health care without it costing us anything.

 

[Jones]

In this case it was an admission by Obama that he knew it would cost us and not be deficit neutral. But I'm sure his press secrtary will smooth it over similar to
your line of defense.

Did he say his plan would raise the deficit? If he did then yes he's going back on his pledge to be deficit neutral, but my understanding is that any plan would have to be scored as deficit neutral by the CBO in order to pass congress (at the very least). If all he said was that the plan in going to cost us, that just means that he's going to raise taxes which is not the same thing.

 

[Jones]

The Obama quote:

"If you say that we can offer coverage for all americans and it wont cost a penny, that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing"

Now you can clearly make the argument you make to explain it all in political goobly gook. But in fact the dems made a clear effort to inform the public that we could cover everyone on health care without it costing us anything.

I'm not sure who you mean by "us". Every plan I saw was paid for in part by some form of tax increase, either on the wealthy, big corporations, "Cadillac" health plans, or cigars and whiskey. That last would hit me pretty hard

 

[tieguy]

Next lie revealed in this head to head.

Obama and the democrats have made an effort constantly chastize the republicans for not joining the legislative process. The republicans have in defense said they have joined the process but that their ideas and suggestions keep getting rejected.

Rep tom Price raised this point in this supposedly one sided debate and obama said:

I've read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff . And the good ideas we take. But here's the thing ....It can't be all or nothing. one way or the other. All Right?

So here Obama now admits that the republicans had made suggestions , that he liked some of their ideas after many public shots calling them the party of no and the do nothings.

 

[tieguy]

I'm not sure who you mean by "us". Every plan I saw was paid for in part by some form of tax increase, either on the wealthy, big corporations, "Cadillac" health plans, or cigars and whiskey. That last would hit me pretty hard

then I suppose you saw that revenues were heavily over estimated in these plans you studied so intently?

Your defense of Obamas rhetoric seems to ignore the no cost marketing put out?

 

[Jones]

then I suppose you saw that revenues were heavily over estimated in these plans you studied so intently?

Your defense of Obamas rhetoric seems to ignore the no cost marketing put out?

I never said anything about that. I was simply pointing out that admitting you are going to raise taxes is not the same as saying you are going to increase the deficit.

 

[tieguy]

I never said anything about that. I was simply pointing out that admitting you are going to raise taxes is not the same as saying you are going to increase the deficit.

thats true you did not bring up any points relevant to my argument that Obama has been dishonest with his marketing of the cost of health care. You did selectively make arguments that were favorable to his dishonest marketing. Thus I labeled your points a defense of his dishonesty.

 

[Jones]

thats true you did not bring up any points relevant to my argument that Obama has been dishonest with his marketing of the cost of health care. You did selectively make arguments that were favorable to his dishonest marketing. Thus I labeled your points a defense of his dishonesty.

You said that Obama lied about his plan being deficit neutral. Your evidence for that was his admission that the plan was going to cost us. That was your argument. I pointed out to you that paying for a plan with a tax increase (which is pretty clearly what Obama meant when he said it would "cost us") does not mean that the plan isn't deficit neutral. It doesn't mean I like the plan, because I don't.