Speaker wants to rip PPACA out by the roots
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,5248183.story

What a crazy copperhead sumbitch! Face the Nation today Boneyard says the Neocon teabagging caucus needs to rip the Healthcare Act out by the roots and start all over piece by piece. I wonder what these idjits would call their version?:(

What a pack of mud wallowing snappin' turds these evil crackers are.
Cue up some Deliverance music somebody.:rolleyes:

They've been saying for two years that they want to "repeal and replace". You'd think that, in all that time, they would have come up with at least the outline of their plan to replace the Affordable Care Act..... if it were really their intention to do anything beyond rolling things back to the way they were pre-PPACA.

John

This is what happens when an arrogant and self-assured asshat is proven wrong time and again. They get increasingly shrill and angry. Sooner or later someone is going to snap and say the wrong (Right?) thing and let the cat out of the bag for all to see. The "Let them eat cake!" moment. I just hope it happens before November.

Dave

The Old, Sick and Infirm Duty to Declare Bankruptcy Die Off Act?
Naw too wordy.:mad:

Seems appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

Boner is a dufuss. Whatever way the wind blows is his motto.

I just hope -- when it occurs -- the populace realizes what has just happened.

Considering all of the right-wing static, they may not.

Maybe Merrylander's inimitable "Screw You Jack, I Got Mine!";)

Judging by all the wacked out hoopla being employed by that nest of vipers teabaggers it's only a matter of time. What a joke these idjits are. Maybe once and for all they'll just bite themselves?:rolleyes:

What they will do is change the wording somewhat to give more to the Healthcare industry and leave the rest alone. Then call the rest of the bill theirs too!



Barney

You betcha my friend. Boneyard would just reverse the percentages of how much the titans of medicine have to spend and call it their own.

Can I get a rowsing chorus of GUILLOTINE?? :( (85 % on administration and 15% on healthcare expenditures)

Yes, I watched it this morning as I almost always do. Same old pack of lies and spin from the great tanned one.

Carl

I like to think of him as Agent Orange.

John

That is why it is important we re-elect Obama. If Romney gets elected there will be no budget reconciliation and those looming cuts in both defense and social programs will send this country into a double dip like in England....and if they destroy the health care bill on top of that it will be worse.
And if they do not destroy it they want to de-fund it so no one can use it....which is just as bad. America will have a health care program in name only.
The great tanned one looked a bit defensive and sort of whistling pass the graveyard, however. I think he knows that Obama is coalition building, and if they do lose this election it may harbor bad things for the future of the party. The Republicans are not going to win on just an anti-health care agenda. The only people really upset are the base of the GOP and the Koch type millionaires. It is going to take much more than winning the disaffected Southern white vote next fall and guess what Romney does not play well there.
To be honest I think the more they talk about destroying Obama care the more they are shooting themselves in the foot. I mean I go out everyday and I just do not run into people complaining about Obama care....is it just my sheltered existence here in California?

For me the classic of the morning was Mitch McConnell's solution to the pre-existing condition issue after repeal and replace: leave it to the states and have the federal government encourage them to address it. That'll work.:rolleyes:

On the Jon Stewart show he showed Romney promising to keep everything in PPACA except the mandatory buy in. Typical repub, promise the moon but not how to pay for it.

There is some promise, a young repub has told super grover to piss off and has come up with a 20/20 plan. Revenues to be 20% of GDP and expenditures reduce to 20% of GDP. More or less the Bowles/Simpson plan the repubs all voted against.

Read a piece on this guy (believe he's Scott Rigell, R-VA). Was impressed with his approach to this. Hardly an idealogue. Strikes me as practical.

So the budget reconciliation process will only happen if Obama is re-elected, eh? You may not have noticed, but both parties are already playing election year politics with the budget. Also, to what specifics can you direct me to demonstrate that the Obama has a track record on reducing the size of government or reducing the budget deficit?

It needs to happen, and the sooner the better.

Interesting that a recent Washington Post poll indicates that most Republicans agree with various provisions of the PPACA until the word 'Obama' is injected into the poll questions then they're opposed. Not entirely sure I understand why that is.

Romney is elected and the lame duck Congress does not do anything so by the time he is sworn in the cuts are ready to go....just like he says he wants to do. Many Republicans are worried too Whell, like Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.
I never said Obama reduced the budget. He has decrease the growth in governement hiring at the Federal level. Your friend Bush is responsible for most of the deficit anyway if you were not paying attention.

I believe you may attribute it to severe partisan stupidity. I see McConnell as good as said during a TV interview that the 30 million uninsured can piss off.

Then we can take it that you agree with Dr. No?

Has the thought ever occurred to you that the Supreme Court's decision last week might have been the end of the Tea Party? Google New Deal coalition Whelly. I am not saying we have won, but if Obama succeeds in establishing this new coalition he is building into a permanent force he is going to paint the Tea Party into a corner.

Could this be the reasons behind the voter suppression or oppression in some states and the BIG MONEY being spent on redirect issues ads.




Barney

It sure as hell won't happen if the Romneybot 8.0 get elected. Look up Jude Wanniski's "Two Santa Claus Theory".

You said it yourself: election year politics. The thing to look at is the party with an actual history of fiscal responsibility. Despite all their mouth noises,it ain't the Republicans.

Well, there are all those unemployed government workers. Anyway, this is not the time for fiscal restraint. Look how well austerity programs, like those our Conservative friends favor, are working in Europe.

You people think that somehow the "Magic of American Exceptionalism" will make it work here when it hasn't ever worked anywhere. By the way, that includes the Good Ol' US of A. At the insistence of the Republicans and some Democrats, FDR tried it during his first term. the Depression deepened as a result. Only after he was able to implement the New Deal, a massive government spending program, did things begin to turn around.

John

As much as I dislike it mightily, Romney saying he won't balance the budget makes him the honest one on this issue.

Pete

Oh, I think you do, beej, but you're too polite to say.

John

Contributed to in no small part by an unprecedented growth in the size of the Federal government with the creation of the DHS.

John

I do disclose in my signature line that I am moderate to the extreme, sir.

Finnbow will love you:);)

If the government budget piling up red ink by the bus load, and increasing its rate of expansion, is not the time to introduce fiscal restraint, then precisely when IS the time to introduce it?

Nope. Quite the opposite, really. Frankly, I think there exists the possibility that the decision could energize both liberal and conservative bases. That's a good thing, don't you think?

As per usual, you need to drastically revise the premise for your question.

The government has drastically reduced its rate of expansion since Bush's DHS orgy. Right now our deficit is a smaller percentage of GDP than it was during the Eisenhower administration.

And we all know how bad things were then.

John

I guess it all depends on how one defines fiscal restraint. If one defines it as being fiscally responsible then I have absolutely no problem with reining in government spending so long as it is accompanied by reasoned and well thought out revenue enhancement through tax increases. To suggest that the national debt can be addressed by budget cutting alone is akin to trying to pay off your credit card by simply stopping charging anything more to it.

Surprisingly, given the source, I agree.;)

John

Good if your base is not shrinking Whelly....think about it. Obama has women, labor,minorities and now those who favor the health care law on his side. Geographically he has a big chunk of the old East Coast, will probably win a few rust belt states, and most importantly, he may be building a Democratic stronghold here in the Southwest...California, New Mexico, and Nevada are within is grasp because of his good standing with Latinos. And he is not so far behind in Arizona either.
Romey may win Florida and Texas....and some of the smaller Western states (population wise) and the South. But I just do not get that expansion feeling from him...do you?
Now if I am wrong you can repost this in Nov:D

I don't see President Obama carrying Ohio. I do think he'll win in Michigan and I want to see Whell's face when that happens. ;)

John

I have faith in my old home state John...it will be close. I do not think the outsourcer issue that Romney is getting targeted with will go down well there...he is going to be painted as another Carly Fiorina. But...you never know about Ohio.

Yes, there's the outsourcing issue and also the "Let Detroit die" business. I don't know but I'd bet there are more auto workers in Ohio now than there are in Michigan.

But then there are the machines, with regard to both their distribution and hackability. We've seen it before. No reason not to expect to see it again.

John