Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Health overhaul law potentially costs $115B more

Tue May 11, 2010 2:58 PM EDT
politics, health, us, barack-obama, costs, overhaul
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. gestures during a "Healthcare Thank You Rally" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May  6, 2010 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)</p>

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. gestures during a "Healthcare Thank You Rally" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 6, 2010 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion — an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.

The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.

The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation — or not.

"Congress does not always act on authorizations that are put into legislation by drafters," explained Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget agency. "Authorizations for discretionary spending are not expenditures."

Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers. Costs could go higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels.

The health care law provides coverage to some more than 30 million now uninsured, offering tax credits to help purchase health insurance through new competitive markets that open for business in 2014. When Congress passed the bill in March, the CBO estimated the coverage expansion would cost $938 billion over 10 years, while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion.

"If Congress were to approve all of this new discretionary funding authorized in the health care bill, almost all of the administration's highly touted savings would be made null and void," said Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee.

But Baer said Obama would demand that added spending be offset with cuts in other domestic programs. "The president made clear he will enforce that with his veto pen," said Baer.

___

On the Net:

Congressional Budget Office report: http://tinyurl.com/3yp78jh

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (131)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
rick-673281

Now tell me there is anyone surprised the costs continue to climb for HCR.

  • 24 votes
#1 - Tue May 11, 2010 3:18 PM EDT
Dog_Blue

There is absolutely no surprise. Congress is corrupt and has forced this down the throat of the country. The majority of people opposed it knowing full well that congress was scamming them with lies and half truths. Now they will be lying to the country about cap and trade (a U.N. fiasco) and then about amnisty programs.

  • 21 votes
#1.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 3:36 PM EDT
mj4545Deleted
Kshark

*busting out laughing hard*

I saw this coming before the Bill was even passed.

Pass now, pay attention later. Well done Obama and his band of merry men and women. LOL

This is why Health Care Reform has not happened in the past. It is TOO EXPENSIVE!!

  • 17 votes
#1.3 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:34 PM EDT
creed

What a @!$%#ing surprise.

If then only we had gotten a health care reform for the money instead of Obama double-dipping into the outrageous negotiations with the very same greedy medicinal industry who made sure we only got peanuts for our expensive health care insurance plans in the first place!

Real change is good. Obama-change is an old hooker charging virgin price.

  • 11 votes
#1.4 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:36 PM EDT
mj4545Deleted
MTpolitico

Let's all say thank you to the kiss a$$ "Party of Yes!"

  • 9 votes
#1.6 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:45 PM EDT
Kshark

This is the most priceless part of the article

Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers. Costs could go higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels.

  • 14 votes
#1.7 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
rickg-808074

Kshark & Mj4545, I'm sure we heard all of you complain when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D. Republicans estimated the cost at 350 billion, real cost over a 800 billion. So I ask you, do only Democrats lie? Most of our total deficit is due to the recklessness of Republican administrations. As for Pelosi, she sure as hell looks better than the Republican leaders, no chin McConnell and no brain Boehner.

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:36 PM EDT
Feldspar

115 Billion in 10 years?

Shoot, that's what only 5 months in Iraq and Afghanistan costs.

Are the same people moaning about this against our Middle East boondoggles as well?

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:52 PM EDT
Jeff-Las Vegas

and this is a surprise how? I really liked the comment

Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers.

Gosh with over a year to pass it and then last minute deals and wet ink, we couldn't wait to get real numbers because it was not politically expedient to do so.

  • 5 votes
#1.10 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:57 PM EDT
mj4545Deleted
Rob-510663

Wow, I am just totally surprised that the government would of misled us to get this bill shoved down our throats? Now the truth is starting to come out maybe just maybe America will wake up, but I doubt that.

  • 6 votes
#1.12 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:24 PM EDT
Kshark

rickg-808074--

That is your response? Attack the GOP, of which I am NOT a Republican anyway, because your beloved Obama is fouling up? LOL Love it, too funny. Keep scrambling to defend. This Health Care crap is a massive travesty.

And what you are talking about the 2003 Medicare Act?

Frankly I would have to read up a lot about it to even say anything, but back then I don't even remember anything about it, nor did I pay attention about it all, so nice try with the assumptions. Gave me a laugh though.

But hey don't you worry this monstrosity of a Health Care reform is going to cause a lot more damage, but I know you will still defend it anyway. Just wait, a whole lot of crap is really going to be flying big time.

  • 8 votes
#1.13 - Tue May 11, 2010 10:47 PM EDT
Peter Faden

"...and the fish i caught was thiiiis big!"

  • 4 votes
#1.14 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:49 PM EDT
mj4545Deleted
JoulesBeef

iraq 144billion per year

gop bitching about 115 billion over ten years to keep our grandmothers out of the doughnut hole and make sure people with preexisting conditions can get insurance when they lose their job and cant afford to keep up cobra.

give a real perspective on the value of life the GOP has.

killing people is worth 144 billion per year
helping grandma afford her pills is wasteful spending.

classy.. i hope you all tell your grand parrents to go to hell cause that is what you are doing.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:06 AM EDT
Raymond Max

What surprises me is that a nation with the ever growing labor pool resources of the U.S. Federal government can't find a decent accounting team...

let's turn the legislative review of the mandate over to the private sector for review. I'm confident that we can find a few 100 billion of of pork smelling entitlements attached to this monster of a bill.

  • 4 votes
#1.17 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:25 AM EDT
Dog_Blue

Democrats supported the Iraq invasion. They saw the money to be made for their districts and they loved the idea. Let's keep it honest beef. Liberal deflection sucks. If this isn't true why didn't Obama exit Iraq early in his presidency. Why did Obam escalate the war in Afghanistan. What about the trillions of increased spending in the last 16 months besides this Obamacare fiasco?

  • 6 votes
#1.18 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:27 AM EDT
Jeff-Las Vegas

Get a life Joules and get over Iraq- which btw we are still in. People are bitching about the "mis-calculation" and how amazingly the budget is off by 10%+ and we are only into month 3 of the bill. How mow much was intentionally miscalculated, how much was lied about to push this bill through. It is not about the past- it is about now and in spite of promises for change, not much has changed from one administration to the next.

  • 7 votes
#1.19 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:34 AM EDT
Ken Pac NW

And what you are talking about the 2003 Medicare Act?

Frankly I would have to read up a lot about it to even say anything, but back then I don't even remember anything about it, nor did I pay attention about it all, so nice try with the assumptions.

On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003; Public Law 108-173 (Medicare Act of 2003).

    #1.20 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:58 AM EDT
    Doug-375144

    The no reform reform act is a boondoggle that will cost many times more than they lied to us it would. And do nothing to hold down cost .

    • 1 vote
    #1.21 - Wed May 12, 2010 1:01 AM EDT
    Rob-510663

    Not to get off the subject but since were talking waste here, the real waste is the fact were bailing out the PIGS (Portagul, Italy, Greece, and Spain). I know the IMF is going to do the real bailout, but guess what folks who supplies more money to the IMF? We do, yeah so we get to bail everyone out. I feel so lucky and to think they were protesting in Greece when this was announced because they won't be able to retire and live off the government at age 53.

    • 1 vote
    #1.22 - Wed May 12, 2010 8:49 AM EDT
    Beckyal

    congress is not so stupid that they didn't know that the cost of the health care would be higher than was estimated for them passing the bill. however, if the costs had been included people would have been even louder in shouting down the bill. Congress needs to be held accountable for their votes and their pay, retirement, and benefits should be used to pay for this mess. the american taxpayers should not have to pay when congress refuses to listen to them. It is time for a new law, hold congress accountable for their corruption.

    • 2 votes
    #1.23 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:05 AM EDT
    Whynotnow

    Beckyal

    i agree, but who makes the laws? Its the same as Congressmen that are caught for Corruption and put in prison still get payed while they are in prison. Not one congressman will make a law that changes this.

    • 1 vote
    #1.24 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:13 AM EDT
    Kshark

    Ken Pac NW--

    Aye I did look up a few links last night, but it was well after midnight and I was exhausted to even care or pay attention to what I was reading.

    But hey just think of it this way, since the projections of that Medicare D debacle were off, and of course it has already been shown this whole HC overhaul will be financially off, it is safe to say the numbers of this piece of steamy pile of dung will hit the roof and keep rising. LOL

    • 4 votes
    #1.25 - Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 PM EDT
    Reply
    The Spirit

    Let's pass it and then we'll find out what's in it.

    Yeah.

    • 17 votes
    Reply#2 - Tue May 11, 2010 3:30 PM EDT
    drbacon

    It passed. And now we still don't know what is in it except higher costs and higher taxes.

    • 7 votes
    #2.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:50 PM EDT
    JoulesBeef

    you know damn well she was saying once it is passed you will see the bull@!$%# people like you have been going off on, isnt really in the bill..like death panels, money for abortions or illegals.. etc

    • 3 votes
    #2.2 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:07 AM EDT
    mj4545Deleted
    Beckyal

    Waiting lines for care, months waiting for surgery for those who pay for insurance. another tax credit so that more don't pay taxes. yep real good law. Just another inch toward America winding up like many countries in Europe.

    • 3 votes
    #2.4 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:08 AM EDT
    TinFoil Annie

    Just another inch toward America winding up like many countries in Europe.

    Bingo!

    • 4 votes
    #2.5 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:21 PM EDT
    Kshark

    Beckyal--

    But but but how can you say that, I mean it is a wonderful thing EVERYONE will have healthcare. Medical staff will be overworked and underpaid and I am sure some will even bypass accepting health insurance all together. LOL.

    • 2 votes
    #2.6 - Wed May 12, 2010 1:36 PM EDT
    drbacon

    Joules is obviously a left wing lackey. Grandma is being well taken care of by Medicare and state run health assistance. This new bill will not make it any easier or better. Stop the whining and accept the fact that your socialist comrade has done nothing good for this country.

    • 2 votes
    #2.7 - Thu May 13, 2010 4:12 AM EDT
    Reply
    hww

    Congress would have to specifically release the funds. Lets hope that congress gets it together and refuses to fund this piece of crap bill and we can start over with something that makes sense and won't cost a fortune. I am afraid as the true costs come to the surface that we will discover that we were only told about the bare basics and not the true costs which will be terrible.

    • 7 votes
    Reply#3 - Tue May 11, 2010 3:54 PM EDT
    neteng

    Lets hope that congress gets it together

    LOL.

    • 2 votes
    #3.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:46 PM EDT
    Beckyal

    People talk about social security but the cost of social security is the reason that many people didn't want it. congress didn't listen then and look at what is happening now with it. congress didn't listen to the people about health care and we will find out it is another entitlement program with no bottom.

    • 2 votes
    #3.2 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:10 AM EDT
    Reply
    Texasguy01

    Time to cancel it. Idiots!

    • 11 votes
    Reply#4 - Tue May 11, 2010 4:24 PM EDT
    Torabu

    There's an easier solution: don't authorize the discretionary spending when the time comes. Keeps the cost at the savings level.

    • 1 vote
    #4.1 - Wed May 12, 2010 1:54 AM EDT
    Beckyal

    Don't pass any spending whether discrentionary or mandatory. Just not authorizing the discretionary spending is not going to keep the cost at a savings level.

    • 2 votes
    #4.2 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:12 AM EDT
    Torabu

    Beckyal

    Don't pass any spending whether discrentionary or mandatory. Just not authorizing the discretionary spending is not going to keep the cost at a savings level.

    Depends what your context is. If we're just talking about the health care law, then -- at least according to this article (and by extension, the CBO) -- not authorizing the additional discretionary spending alone would keep the law at its originally projected savings (it's the additional discretionary spending that changes the projected costs to what's being reported). Also in the article:

    But Baer said Obama would demand that added spending be offset with cuts in other domestic programs. "The president made clear he will enforce that with his veto pen," said Baer.

    So alternatively, America might see some cuts in other areas to keep the additional costs neutral, rather than not authorizing them.

    • 1 vote
    #4.3 - Thu May 13, 2010 2:50 AM EDT
    Reply
    redsky

    Hmmmm... Insurance premiums to rise 20 to 40% a year and it's a surprise that costs for a program will go up. I know... GOP to the rescue for the insurance companies! They are on your side and here to protect you. who's are the idiots???

    • 1 vote
    Reply#5 - Tue May 11, 2010 5:11 PM EDT
    VetteLover

    “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi

    Possibly the dumbest political quote I have ever heard and I have heard a lot from the 111th congress thus far!

    In my opinion, just this comment alone breaks our Constitutional law. No taxation without representation and this is without a doubt is a tax on the people with the IRS as the enforcer. They have fully admitted that all the powers to be voting on this bill did not read it in full, including the CBO, the Republicans, the media and everyone else. Hell, I am still trying to read it and understand it. And only now do we find out what should have ALREADY been discovered during the reading and debating process of our government.

    We elect our politicians whether they are conservative or Liberal to write, READ IN FULL and have hearty debate on the bills being signed for the American People. This obviously did not happen!

    • 8 votes
    Reply#6 - Tue May 11, 2010 5:40 PM EDT
    believe anything

    Here we go again!!!!!!!!

    Nooooooooooo, I can't handle anymore Pelosi bs.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#7 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
    believe anything

    LOL....Pelosi on the left, Palin on the right...stuck in the middle again...we just can't win. I wonder how much it is costing just to write this bill?

    • 2 votes
    Reply#8 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:42 PM EDT
    Fred-45144444

    Kepp spending b!tch, November is almost here!

    • 9 votes
    Reply#9 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:45 PM EDT
    mj4545Deleted
    Fred-45144444

    That's Keep, sorry.

    • 3 votes
    #9.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:49 PM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    fred...your language, couldn't you make it witch...NAH!

    • 3 votes
    #9.3 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:38 PM EDT
    Reply
    Whynotnow

    This is for all of you that are willing to think on your own.

    There was a man that wanted to be in control of a country at all cost. He attempted to sway the people with promises of money and how everything should be fair. He had spent some time in prison and learned that he could not convince people so easily to see his way of thinking. So while he was in prison he learned that the easiest way was to take these steps.

    1 you must convince people that there is a group that has more money then you, and you have not had the freedoms they have had to succeed.

    2 You must be at war with other countries so that the people will fear for safety and spend money on the government.

    3 you must convince the younger generation and the people that have believed that they have been cheated, that they must stand up and become racist either by color, nationality or religion.

    4 you must control the media, because if you only show one side of the story and don’t tell all the facts ,then people will believe what they read, hear, or see.(This is not the peoples fault, because they can only know what you tell them by media)

    Once he accomplished this, he was able to cause the country to become communist by the people believing that the government was much better at controlling the people, then they could do their self’s.

    In the end, he caused Millions to die

    His name was Hitler.

    Now I would like you to look at the US president and see how he is different.

    All I ask if for you to talk with your children and discuss humanity and life. Don’t fall for false promises, teach them, that the more you work the more you receive, not that the world is fair and everyone should get the same.

    Every time you see something about security with the United States, question it, and ask yourself what would you do if Hitler was in control of your country? Would you be able to stand up and fight? Would all the cameras and security operations we are allowing in our country, stop you from doing what is right. Would that church, do what happened in Germany, and not say anything about the millions of people being murdered, because the church receives money from the Government? If Your US president is not Hitler now, what happens if the next one is?

    • 8 votes
    Reply#10 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:50 PM EDT
    creed

    Well spoken!

    I like your style.

    • 4 votes
    #10.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 6:52 PM EDT
    Kshark

    Whynotnow--

    I didn't even need to read the name, only the first paragraph to know precisely who you were talking about.

    Frankly it is happening in the US.

    • 4 votes
    #10.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
    nel1944Deleted
    AlphaDogReporter

    Yes and there once was a man that told us that we had to invade other countries in order to rid them of weapons of mass destruction.

    He and his father also told us that the global economy was the way to go and from 2001 to 2008 we had trade deficits of $4.5 trillion and lost 8 million manufacturing jobs.

    We were also told that over $1.6 trillion in tax cuts would stimulate the economy despite the fact that the two wars, which were unfunded, cost over $1 trillion, and HIS health reform plan, Medicare Part D, cost an unfunded $400 billion.

    We were also told repeatedly by one of the media outlets who kept having interviews with Karl Rove that deficit spending was not a problem.

    We were also told by that man that we had to bail out Wall Street/, AIG and Fannie/Freddie or the entire U.S. economy would collapse; a claim that has now been proven to be not true.

    I can go on about him, but you all know who it was. George W. Bush. And there are a lot of people that still think he was a great president.

    If you are going to question leadership, be sure you question both sides of the aisle. The next Hitler might be a Republican.

    • 5 votes
    #10.4 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:29 PM EDT
    Olbermansadink

    AlphaDog,

    What is your point ?

      #10.5 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:34 PM EDT
      Whynotnow

      AlphaDogReporter

      i didn't say bush was great, that is your problem, you still see the small picture. Maybe this issue has been working long before the presidents you can name have been around. Lets see how long you have voted for people that have taken away you and your children's freedom.

      • 3 votes
      #10.6 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:35 PM EDT
      nel1944Deleted
      rickg-808074

      Whynotnow, I'm sorry but your comparison is just silly. Obama is not like Hitler in any way. Hitler along with a lot of other Germans were mad at the Jewish bankers who stopped the funding for WWI. I'm not giving Hitler an excuse, but money envy was not the reason for his hatred. He hated the countries of western Europe because after the war ended those countries treated Germany very harshly. Germany was humiliated, nothing like a little humiliation to create hatred. What Hitler did was tap into this hatred the German people felt, he told them not only were they just as good as these people in France, Britain and the USA, they were better (master race).

      As far as teaching my children the lessons of life, I've raised five children and the most important lesson I have ever taught them is treat other people the way you would want to be treated (golden rule). I also tell them that hard work is its own reward. Telling them the harder they work the more they will recieve, may not be a true statement. I know a lot of people who work a lot less than me but make a hell of a lot more money. I would stick to your "life is not fair" comment.

        #10.8 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:09 PM EDT
        Whynotnow

        rickg-808074

        did i compare obama as Hitler? you seem to miss the point, i asked you to. The question was, are we going down the same road as Germany. And let me help you with your 5 children, you did not raise them unless you did not send them to public schools. All schools receive how to teach your children and how to have them believe from the government. you can try and force your beliefs on them, but they spend 8 hrs a day in school and 3 hrs a day with you awake. Most children will not have your same views because the government controls each generation more on how to think. When you were growing up, did you know the country was in such a big debt? They do. Did you have as many laws when you were growing up about what you could do and you couldn't do? Were business better at the time you came of age to work, or was there as many permits and laws for starting a business. Did the government have the right to come into your home without a permit? They do now. Was crime as high in schools and gang violence as big? Did you go to school with a large amount of people that did not speak english? So the way you think school may not be correct about schools. So in reality, all you know, is what the Television tells you. Schools teach Socialism. I have seen this in the books myself. It started in 1976

          #10.9 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:43 PM EDT
          vol fan in chatt, tn

          The next Hitler might be a Republican.

          So are you saying this current Hitler is a Democrat? Maybe the one in office now? I never thought you'd admit that.

          • 3 votes
          #10.10 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:46 PM EDT
          Reply
          ADad-1477522

          Time to revoke their license to practice medicine. After all, in their case, practice surely does not make perfect. Also, time for them to be held accountable for their lies: "Oh, we are gonna save the country soo much money".

          I've had enough of Nancy and her crew of thugs and liars. Have u???

          • 6 votes
          Reply#11 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:08 PM EDT
          vol fan in chatt, tn

          yes, YES, AND YES!!

          • 3 votes
          #11.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:47 PM EDT
          Reply
          gt350cobra

          This probably isn't the end of it, it will probably cost closer to 1.5-2 trillion.

          • 6 votes
          Reply#12 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:14 PM EDT
          ADad-1477522

          Move the decimal over to the right a few spaces and we will have the *correct* amount that WE THE PEOPLE, will be bled... Congress is a joke and not a FUNNY one:-(

          • 1 vote
          #12.1 - Fri May 14, 2010 1:13 PM EDT
          gt350cobra

          Sometimes you get the laugh just to protect yourslef from the seriousness of the problem, one that has been going on far too long.

            #12.2 - Fri May 14, 2010 8:23 PM EDT
            UNA_Lion

            ADad-1477522
            Move the decimal over to the right a few spaces and we will have the *correct* amount that WE THE PEOPLE, will be bled... Congress is a joke and not a FUNNY one:-(

            Why am I recalling a scene from Office Space?

            "I always mess up some mundane detail!"

            • 1 vote
            #12.3 - Fri May 14, 2010 8:28 PM EDT
            Reply
            Candide and Me

            who cares what it cost if it's free?

            • 4 votes
            Reply#13 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:30 PM EDT
            believe anything

            rotflol...good one

            • 2 votes
            #13.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:08 PM EDT
            gt350cobra

            Thanks for the laugh. LOL

            • 1 vote
            #13.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 10:20 PM EDT
            Beckyal

            Free for who, those that already don't pay taxes? It is dragging many who worked to get out of that sitution back into it. Is that what we want for Americans?

            • 1 vote
            #13.3 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:17 AM EDT
            Torabu

            Candide and Me

            who cares what it cost if it's free?

            .... Say what? Where on earth are you getting your information from? I suggest you find a new outlet.

            • 1 vote
            #13.4 - Thu May 13, 2010 2:52 AM EDT
            Reply
            billy-witchdoctor-com

            The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries.The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

            It is very clear that with news articles comming out every two weeks showing that another cost increase in healthcare...it is clear that the Democrat has no clue what he / she is doing. No country has ever undertaken 308 million for healthcare and has been deficit neutral. As a report from the fed govt showed we spend 2.5 trillion now and it is going to 3.5 trillion yearly...my advice....look to Argentina and to Greece see how they fared in an ecoonmic crises when their country we bankrupt so you will know what to do...this is what you get when you vote for an agenda not what is best for the country....now you get to tell us why the Democrat has the right to bankrupts us because George Bush...what ever ...he is gone and now it is up to this current administration to manage the money we pay in taxes correctly.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#14 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:31 PM EDT
            drbacon

            Like the ads that say: "Buy this product and we will sent you this item FREE!". In other words, it's free if you send us money. lol

            • 2 votes
            #14.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:56 PM EDT
            Reply
            nel1944Deleted
            USA Freedom

            gt350cobra-

            My number was closer to 2.5 Trillion if implemented per the actual law written and passed. But it won't. It will crumble in both the House and Senate. Obama's Presidency will be an even bigger failure than Jimmy Carter's.

            His policies are anti private industry job killers. Unemployment rose back up to 9.9 this last week. I imagine we will be around 10.3 in November.

            Both Dems and Repubs will be distancing themselves as far as they can because of it but the fallout from HCR will be the catalyst. This is the second report of an increase from the CBO in 3 weeks....

            • 4 votes
            #16 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:35 PM EDT
            gt350cobra

            I don't even want to look.

            If you mention Jimmy Carter along with Obama again I think Carter will be pretty pissed off at you.....

            • 1 vote
            #16.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 10:23 PM EDT
            USA Freedom

            LOL!!! Carter wouldn't know who I was talking about. No, I am not saying he has dementia. He's just as clueless now as when he was President.

            • 1 vote
            #16.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:38 PM EDT
            gt350cobra

            That and just in case you missed it on TV he was getting mad that Obama was getting compared to him.

              #16.3 - Wed May 12, 2010 7:52 AM EDT
              USA Freedom

              I did miss it. I wonder if it was that Obama was being compared to him or him being compared to Obama. He is from Georgia after all.

                #16.4 - Wed May 12, 2010 1:50 PM EDT
                gt350cobra

                It was Obama being compared to Carter.

                  #16.5 - Wed May 12, 2010 4:35 PM EDT
                  Torabu

                  USA Freedom

                  Unemployment rose back up to 9.9 this last week.

                  Just FYI, America added jobs in April (the largest monthly increase in four years to boot), and Gallup reports a significant drop in underemployment (unemployment alone saw a drop from 10.4% to 9.7%). Read the link for details regarding the difference in Gallup and federal employment reporting.

                  Speaking of federal reporting, if you're curious as to how federal unemployment reporting could rise when there was such a large increase in jobs, it's because of a number of factors: as the Gallup link points out, federal reporting is seasonally adjusted, and also the spike in job-searching added a large influx of reported unemployed. That influx eclipsed the job increases.

                  Seeing the unemployment numbers increase can be pretty gloomy, but the good thing is that actual job creation is increasing. Setting statistics aside, that means more Americans had jobs at the end of April than at the beginning of the month.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.6 - Thu May 13, 2010 3:07 AM EDT
                  Jixer

                  Are these jobs included in that increase? Over 200,000 census takers started receiving pay for services beginning in Feb 2010. The number increased to over 600,000 in April.

                  About 635,000 2010 Census takers across the nation begin going door to door tomorrow to follow up with households that either didn't mail back their form or didn't receive one. An estimated 48 million addresses will be visited through July 10 (30 Apr 10/2010 census homepage).

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.7 - Thu May 13, 2010 5:08 AM EDT
                  Torabu

                  Jixer

                  Are these jobs included in that increase?

                  Just read the links I provided. Gallup link says:

                  While part of this improvement is the result of the normal pickup in hiring at this time of year -- and the addition of temporary census workers -- it is good news both for those becoming fully employed and for the economy as a whole.

                  But do note that the IndustryWeek article points out where some of the non-federal increases are coming from:

                  It was the largest number of jobs added to the labor force since March 2006. Since January of this year there has been a gain of 573,000 jobs.

                  Manufacturing added 44,000 jobs in April.

                  Since December, factory employment has risen by 101,000. Over the month, gains occurred in several durable goods industries, including fabricated metals (9,000) and machinery (7,000). Employment also grew in nondurable goods manufacturing (14,000).

                  I'm not sure if you're just being lazy or deliberately partisan, but there you go.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.8 - Thu May 13, 2010 11:12 AM EDT
                  Jixer

                  Just askin' a question. Here's another one... ever notice how some people on newsvine can be real @!$%#s instead of just being civil?

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.9 - Thu May 13, 2010 11:15 AM EDT
                  USA Freedom

                  Torabu-

                  Th.e real number is closer to 17%. Obama managed to keep that down by continuing unemployment benefits but I can promise you that even the poorest Americans cannot live on that small amount of money. This whole thing is going to blow up very quickly. I am guessing 12% which later today Obama will blame on Republican obstructionists. The Divider in Chief strikes again!!!

                  • 2 votes
                  #16.10 - Thu May 13, 2010 12:30 PM EDT
                  Torabu

                  Jixer

                  Just askin' a question. Here's another one... ever notice how some people on newsvine can be real @!$%#s instead of just being civil?

                  Well, when you take the time to research census numbers but can't even bother to read (or alternatively, deliberately ignore) the content you're responding to, how else do you expect me to respond? If I'm an @!$%# for calling you out on that, then it could be said the same of you for either:

                  a.) failing to have the courtesy to actually read that which you're responding to; or

                  b.) trying to score a cheap political point on a faulty premise.

                  Whether you fall under a or b depends on you; I'm not so presumptuous as to assume which scenario is the right one.

                  USA Freedom

                  Th.e real number is closer to 17%.

                  Gallup shows underemployment at 18.9% for April, which is pretty close (albeit a bit higher). This is what Gallup defines as strictly unemployed:

                  Unemployed (Underemployed)

                  A respondent is unemployed if he/she reports not being employed in the last 7 days, either for an employer or for himself or herself. The respondent must also report actively looking for a job in the last four weeks AND being able to begin work in the last four weeks.

                  This definition comes from a PDF file outlining employment classifications. Of course, unemployment statistics are usually lower than the reality, because of unemployed people that stop actively searching. With that noted, like I said in #16.6, more private sector jobs means less Americans unemployed. That an influx of previously unreported unemployed began actively searching again (and thus became reported -- hello higher unemployment statistic) doesn't change this, which is a good thing for America.

                  This whole thing is going to blow up very quickly. I am guessing 12% which later today Obama will blame on Republican obstructionists. The Divider in Chief strikes again!!!

                  Three assumptions in three sentences. The blow-up scenario is plausible, but if April's jobs data is any indication, so is the economy recovering fast enough to allow many of those on EI to become employed again before the benefits dry up. Or perhaps we'd see something in between. We'll just have to wait and see.

                  As for Obama, he's not a blame-the-other-party-all-the-time kind of guy. Depends on the situation, but let's face it, the GOP has deservedly been blamed for obstructionism on a number of occasions. The most obvious examples I can think of off the top of my head would be a number of Obama appointees that were delayed confirmation for no decent reason.

                  Finally, if Obama doesn't go about blaming Republicans, that third sentence crumbles. ;)

                  Moving on to more productive thoughts, here's hoping May outshines April's private sector jobincreases.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.11 - Thu May 13, 2010 11:28 PM EDT
                  USA Freedom

                  Torabu-

                  Well, I am pleased to report that he did not opt for the second assumption. He managed to deliver a sensitive, well thought and personable speech today. Still, like you say the number is really much higher to 18.9%. He's going to need all the help he can get to get this right. We need jobs so my prayers are with him.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.12 - Fri May 14, 2010 12:46 AM EDT
                  Torabu

                  USA Freedom

                  He's going to need all the help he can get to get this right. We need jobs so my prayers are with him.

                  True that. My biggest worry is that more partisan individuals will use articles like this to continue to send America's political discussion down a spiral into rhetorical hell. Two negative effects from that:

                  1.) The topic in question (in this case, HCR) gets blown out of proportion. For example, people are already assuming that the cost increases reported in this article are absolute, rather than discretionary at a future date (and may never be implemented at all, who knows).

                  2.) Politicians get distracted from getting real work done, which is a terrible thing when you have a recovering economy you need to manage.

                  On another note, not a bad attempt to tie this tangential discussion back on topic, in my opinion. ;)

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.13 - Fri May 14, 2010 2:17 AM EDT
                  Jixer

                  Torabu - or

                  c. Maybe i missed the piece that said those numbers were included and maybe just expected a yes or no answer to a simple question.

                  I did not call "YOU" an @!$%#.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.14 - Fri May 14, 2010 4:44 AM EDT
                  Torabu

                  Jixer

                  c. Maybe i missed the piece that said those numbers were included and maybe just expected a yes or no answer to a simple question.

                  In other words, you've decided option "A" best reflects what happened. If you think that's harsh, do consider that "missing" an entire section is only made possible by not reading it.

                  I did not call "YOU" an @!$%#.

                  I find that statement dubious for two reasons. One, that particular post started off with a passively defensive statement -- "Just askin' a question" -- and two, I find it very difficult to believe that such a question would come out of left field without some sort of motivation behind it.

                  Assuming I'm wrong, I'm sure you can at least look back and notice that the context seemed to heavily imply you were referring to me.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.15 - Fri May 14, 2010 2:45 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  garyray-501488

                  Medicare for all.

                  Should have gone that route. The infrastructure and bureaucracy is already in place. No reason to re-invent the wheel.

                  Instead we get this convoluted wealth transfer scheme from the taxpayer, to private insurance companies. What a crock.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#17 - Tue May 11, 2010 7:40 PM EDT
                  Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                  The Grim Creeper

                  Is anyone actually surprised that the Democrats lied to advance their agenda and the truth came out after it's too late? If every one of them isn't sent packing in November, it will be a travesty.

                  • 6 votes
                  Reply#19 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:04 PM EDT
                  Ken Pac NW

                  Is anyone actually surprised that the Democrats lied to advance their agenda

                  Is anyone actually surprised that the Republicans lied to advance their agenda, i.e. Iraq?

                  At least with health care reform, we GET something for our money!

                  • 2 votes
                  #19.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:08 PM EDT
                  The Grim Creeper

                  At least with health care reform, we GET something for our money!

                  Yeah, we get rationing and crippling national debt. Enjoy it, Ken, because we'll be Greece in a few years.

                  BTW: There were plenty of Democrats who supported the invasion of Iraq, which is more than I can say about Republicans who supported ObamaCare.

                  • 9 votes
                  #19.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:13 PM EDT
                  gt350cobra

                  GrimCreeper- You read my mind.

                  • 2 votes
                  #19.3 - Tue May 11, 2010 10:26 PM EDT
                  mavrick03

                  Hey Ken

                  I guess all the stuff from Clinton that led up to Iraq was all republican lies right?

                  How about all the sanctions imposed by the U.N. more republican lies?

                  I get so sick and tired of the ignorance.

                  [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

                  "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

                  "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

                  "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

                  "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

                  "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

                  "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

                  "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

                  "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

                  "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

                  "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

                  "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

                  "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

                  "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

                  "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

                  "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

                  "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

                  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

                  "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

                  "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

                  "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

                  "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

                  "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

                  "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

                  "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

                  "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

                  "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

                  "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

                  "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

                  "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

                  "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

                  "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

                  all those miss leading republicans

                  Mav

                  • 12 votes
                  #19.4 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:56 PM EDT
                  vol fan in chatt, tn

                  once again, Mav, you have outdone yourself. Great FACTUAL post (something we don't often get from the left) and in their own words (not that that matters....). Great post!

                  • 6 votes
                  #19.5 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:08 AM EDT
                  USA Freedom

                  Nicely done, Mav. Unfortunately, Vol Fan and I will probably be the only ones to comment. The Liberal Left physically "turtles" when this data is brought out. You won't see their head or appendages for 3 more days. They don't like facts.

                  It's like turning on a desk lamp in a dark room full of cockroaches. Once that switch goes and the light comes on they scatter into the cracks and crevices of the room and within seconds it's like they were never there in the first place.

                  • 7 votes
                  #19.6 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:23 AM EDT
                  creed

                  Mav - you're the best!

                  Very nice work indeed.

                  • 4 votes
                  #19.7 - Wed May 12, 2010 9:05 AM EDT
                  TinFoil Annie

                  Mav: great post!

                  • 3 votes
                  #19.8 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:24 PM EDT
                  Torabu

                  mavrick03, could you send some sources my way? I'll Google in the meantime, but it's evident you've already done the legwork.

                  • 1 vote
                  #19.9 - Thu May 13, 2010 3:10 AM EDT
                  Torabu

                  [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

                  Found the source for this one. Continuing on the scavenger hunt (feel free to join in), but methinks the Library of Congress should have most of them.

                  p.s. I'm not so much interested in the quotes from 2002, as America was in the middle of assuming Hussein had or was capable of having WMDs based on Bush Administration intelligence. Just thought I'd clarify.

                  p.p.s. For those wondering why I'm source hunting, it's because long, copy/pasted posts* aren't always factual (I'm sure everyone's seen someone blast a factually-challenged chain email on the internet at least once). Seeing as I'm already finding legit sources, however, I'm more inclined to believe the quotes.

                  * In my Googling I found the exact same post mavrick03 provided on a number of blog and news sites. I suppose that's a negative on the legwork after all.

                  • 1 vote
                  #19.10 - Thu May 13, 2010 3:26 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  Ken Pac NW

                  Guess we'll have to quit wasting $$$ in Afghanistan and Iraq. That will more than cover any shortfall.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#20 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:07 PM EDT
                  The Grim Creeper

                  Guess we'll have to quit wasting $$$ in Afghanistan and Iraq. That will more than cover any shortfall.

                  Right. Instead we'll waste $50 billion propping up Greece's welfare state. $50 billion we have to borrow from the Chinese, by the way. And if you want to discuss a real waste of money, Ken, let's discuss that phony stimulus/porkulus package of Obama's.

                  • 6 votes
                  #20.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:18 PM EDT
                  mavrick03

                  As long as we can take some of that money and buy ken a brain im all for it.

                  If not then hell no

                  Mav

                  • 3 votes
                  #20.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:57 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Was a Democrat-651386

                  I took the time to read over 1000 pages of the POS bill. Once you also start to read the statues and regulations that where changed by almost every part of this bill, by strike this word or replace this sentence with. I got a very big education in just how much this bill changed my other programs.

                  This bill takes money from programs and uses it to fund health care along with additional taxes. This bill was a POS from the beginning, it did not need to be passed to see what is in it. There was nothing in it because there were no real details in the bill. Many parts were left ambiguous so they could be left up to interpretation.

                  We now have Pelosi hitting the church circuit urging the churches to preach about how we need, based on the bible, to take care of the illegals. 1.2 trillion to put 30 million on the government dole, only another 650 billion to put the approx. 14 million illegals there also. Total cost to taxpayers almost 2 trillion, now there's change you can believe in.

                  This country needs to wake up quickly and get rid of the idiots in government.

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#21 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:11 PM EDT
                  RMForbes

                  I don't think they take into account the billions being saved by moving people away from using the emergency room as their primary healthcare into community clinics. Here in California there has been a noticable change already, emergency rooms are not as crowded with non-emergency patients. Is this the beginning of a possible public conscientiousness change before the law even goes into effect?

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#22 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:20 PM EDT
                  mj4545Deleted
                  Was a Democrat-651386

                  How do you save billions when those peoples health care is now being paid by medicare/Medicaid. How do you save billions when a 5 billion dollar fund was put in the bill to immediately give the uninsured insurance. By the way, when that fund is gone it is gone, those people will be back in the emergency room just like before. Sounds like it cost us 5 billion. Also when it runs out it will cost us much more.

                  • 4 votes
                  #22.2 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:33 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  AngryAmerican1788

                  Doesn't matter whether healthcare overhaul was a good idea or not (it isn't). When you implement something this carelessly there are going to be big problems. The federal government can't keep anything simple.

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#23 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:17 PM EDT
                  Whynotnow

                  its always about power. Get as many people to depend on the government, so the government can receive more power over the people. This country could have been fixed so fast and the government new that. They needed something that would take what is left of the peoples freedoms. If you break the people financially, then they must turn to government. All the government had to do was cut all special interest groups, and that would have saved billions of dollars. Now the odds are that in 10 years we will become completely socialized,

                  • 2 votes
                  #23.1 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:26 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  drbacon

                  This entire administration has been based on lies and deceits starting back in the early days of his campaign. So why is anyone surprised at this?

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#24 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:01 AM EDT
                  gt350cobra

                  He kept one promise at least, He is a transparent liar. You got to love the 12% approval rating that congress has, at least last I checked.

                  • 3 votes
                  #24.1 - Wed May 12, 2010 7:55 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  Huntington

                  Honestly no one thought the health care bill would save money as it was pitched by it's supporters. Plan was to just get the clunker passed for a political victory with knowledge that once passed...we'd be stuck with it. This has got to be collectively the worst Congress in our history...all the leadership and sophistication of a high school political science class. No offense to you high-schoolers.

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#25 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:16 AM EDT
                  Ian-981823

                  Love 'em or hate 'em...the conservatives(you know the 'No" crowd) did repeatedly state what a financial loser this bill would be right from the get-go and particularly so towards the future. The next generation(s) simply won't be able to afford this albatross.

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#26 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:27 AM EDT
                  mike-330799

                  So...which of his other constituencies is the President going to shaft to pay for HCR? Environmental protection? Education? Scientific research? Something tells me it will be the DoD. That's one part of discretionary spending most liberals can easily see lowered. It certainly wont be Medicare or Medicaid or any other mandatory spending.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#27 - Wed May 12, 2010 2:10 AM EDT
                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                  Leave a Comment:
                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                  FUN STUFF:
                  • Leaderboard |
                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                  • Top of the Vine |
                  • Newsvine Live |
                  • Newsvine Archives |
                  • The Greenhouse
                  COMPANY STUFF:
                  • Code of Honor |
                  • Company Info |
                  • Contact Us |
                  • Jobs |
                  • User Agreement |
                  • Privacy Policy |
                  • About our ads
                  LEGAL STUFF:
                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com