HitsRus;1270338 wrote::laugh:... now that's funny coming from a democrat.

As far as Mitt and/or Republicans liking some aspects of the AHCA...of course they like SOME aspects. If you recall, the 'Pubs/McCain had their own proposals for healthcare in 2008. Democrats act as if they alone care about healthcare affordablity, minorities, women's rights. Nothing is further from the truth...the difference often is in method and funding. Is it just hubris or downright duplicity that they(Dems) have fabricated these supposed 'wars' on women and minorities?

as far as AHCA...why would anyone in their right mind support something that was negligently passed before anyone even read it?.... that required (in dogg's words) a 'gimmick' to pass it?

but can you please tell me why Richard Nixon was the last Republican President to actually propose anything regarding health care reform?

stlouiedipalma;1271284 wrote:George Bush screwed millions of seniors with the "donut hole" and, in true Bush fashion, put it on the credit card just like his phoney war in Iraq. Wow, you Republicans sure looked the other way on those pieces of fiscal restraint, didn't you?

Nothing false there. He's the last one to offer significant reforms. Bush's Medicare Part B was nothing more than a free pass for the insurance companies. The problem is that Republicans like to talk about health care reform, but when they are in office they have a selective memory and ignore it

HitsRus;1271307 wrote:No, everything is false in that allegation, you didn't read my link, or you are in denial.

QuakerOats;1271383 wrote:As always, government involvement and intrusion is the heart of the problem.

So let's do more government.

HitsRus;1271382 wrote:Did you read the link?...no, because all you talked about is medicare. Bush proposed a plan in Jan 2007 in his State of the Union. Was it acceptable to Democrats? NO. Why offer incentives, and reform on what's driving up costs when you can issue mandates and control all the money?....you just don't want to accept that Republicans care about health care, just like you think you(Dems) have a monopoly on women's issues and minority representation.

What part of Thomas Sowell don't you understand?

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20[SUP], [/SUP]2013.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

gut;1272602 wrote:Obama "slowest spending growth" LMFAO. Are people really this ignorant? Completely manipulated/engineered calculation.

A simple and clear number is this: 60% increase - 6 trillion - in the national debt in only 4 years.

Footwedge;1272612 wrote:Obama had nothing to do with the 2009 budget. I wrote about this a year ago here...and you still don't get it. SMH.

fish82;1267068 wrote:I don't recall the last administration that had their agenda so repudiated by the voters that it led to a 64 seat swing in the House, if that's what you're asking.

Abe Vigoda;1272528 wrote:






http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

gut;1272602 wrote:Obama "slowest spending growth" LMFAO. Are people really this ignorant? Completely manipulated/engineered calculation.

A simple and clear number is this: 60% increase - 6 trillion - in the national debt in only 4 years.

fish82;1273265 wrote:Rex Nutting is a tool, and this article was thoroughly debunked within 48 hours of its publication back in May.

stlouiedipalma;1273444 wrote:And this is just an example of why no one takes you folks seriously. It doesn't matter whether it is this, global warming or evolution. You believe what you want to believe, facts be damned. The age-old Republican adage of telling a big lie long enough that people accept it as true.