Yet you post it with no disclaimer, no comments that point out ant lack of cohesiveness.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > This was written by Bob Cesa, not by Tommy. > > On 10/21/10, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > You claim: > > > > ******1) The health-care-reform bill will help working and middle > > class > > Americans to afford quality health insurance via hundreds of billions > > of dollars in subsidies. ***** > > > > In the SAME BREATH you state: > > > > The question about "Obamacare," then, is very simply: Why are the > > Republicans against reducing the deficit by $130 billion > > > > Tommy since when does an EXACT figure of 130 billion equal less than > > an unknown quantity of "HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS" in subsidies ??? > > > > EXACTLY where does the money come from to pay those subsidies ??? > > > > According to your article Hussein Care will save nothing, the savings > > of 130 billion will be replaced with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of costs.... > > Can't you read ??? > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 8:30 am, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The Republican Swindle About 'Obamacare and Stimulus' > >> > >> -by Bob Cesa > >> > >> If you happen to be a swing voter who's considering the Republican > >> slate next month, you're being tricked. That's not to say you're an > >> idiot, but the Republicans are doing an excellent job masking over > >> what they really stand for, and millions of Americans seem to be > >> falling for it. > >> > >> The Republican strategy for this midterm election is simple: Treat > >> voters like easily manipulated hoopleheads. The GOP and its various > >> apparatchiks are spending untold millions of dollars, much of it from > >> anonymous donors and, perhaps, even some illegal foreign donors, in > >> order to play out this nationwide swindle. They're investing heavily > >> on the wager that Americans are so kerfuffled by the slow-growth (but > >> growth nevertheless) economy that they're willing to buy any line of > >> nonsense as an alternative solution. > >> > >> Regarding that nonsense, just about every GOP solution and every GOP > >> idea reveals either a hilariously obvious contradiction or an utterly > >> transparent hypocrisy. Say nothing of unchecked awfulness like > >> Southern Strategy race-baiting or bald-faced lies. But it doesn't seem > >> to matter much because they've buried most of it under heaping piles > >> of inchoate outrage and fear. Just like always. It's not unlike the > >> 2000s all over again. They're engaging in the same bumper sticker > >> sloganeering and myopic agitprop, but with updated content for 2010. > >> > >> If you've seen any of the Republican TV spots this cycle, you're > >> probably familiar with the focus-group-tested duet of fear: "Obamacare > >> and Stimulus." For example, that infamous John Raese commercial > >> featuring two not-West-Virginian West Virginians in full "hicky" > >> regalia discussing why they're voting Republican. Among the reasons: > >> "Obamacare and Stimulus." No specific reasons why those items are > >> evil, they're just two scary things the hicky guys are pissed about. > >> > >> And why aren't there any specific gripes cited along with those two > >> items? Because the actual gripes are ridiculous. > >> > >> Let's start with "Obamacare," then hit "Stimulus" presently. > >> > >> The Republicans are trying to tell us that the health-care-reform bill > >> is a hugely expensive trespass against freedom and liberty. This > >> obviously refers to the price tag and the individual mandate. What > >> they don't mention is that "Obamacare" will actually achieve several > >> very significant goals. > >> > >> 1) The health-care-reform bill will help working and middle class > >> Americans to afford quality health insurance via hundreds of billions > >> of dollars in subsidies. For example, families of four earning $54,000 > >> will see their insurance premiums reduced by around $10,000 per year. > >> That's a lot. Who in their right mind would turn down a government > >> check for $10,000? Every year. That's a full semester of state > >> university tuition, among other things. > >> > >> 2) Contrary to the "Obama-is-spending-too-much" meme, the bill does > >> not increase the deficit. According to the nonpartisan CBO, the bill > >> cuts the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Put another way, all > >> that scaremongering about the cost of the bill is just that: > >> scaremongering. The bill pays for itself and then some. > >> > >> 3) There are no enforcement mechanisms for the super-duper terrifying > >> individual mandate. If you choose not to buy insurance when the > >> mandate takes effect in 2014, and are consequently fined $695, there > >> is no means of actually enforcing the payment of that penalty. No > >> liens, levies, no jail, no Obamacare Goons swooping into your house > >> like America-hating Kenyan ninjas. Nothing will happen to you. > >> Nothing. So, you know, chill out about the mandate. > >> > >> The question about "Obamacare," then, is very simply: Why are the > >> Republicans against reducing the deficit by $130 billion, and why are > >> they against more accessible and affordable healthcare? I have no > >> idea, other than they're taking the childish opposite position of what > >> was passed (despite the deficit reduction and subsidies for the middle > >> class, etc.). Oh, and they call it "Obamacare," which is spooky and > >> one letter away from being "Osamacare." Scary, but entirely without > >> substance. > >> > >> Oh, and speaking of the deficit, the Republicans are lying to voters > >> about the Democratic handling of the deficit as well. It turns out the > >> Democrats and the Obama administration cut the deficit this year. Cut > >> it. The 2009 Bush-approved budget was $1.416 trillion and the 2010 > >> Obama-approved budget was $122 billion less. Meanwhile, the > >> Republicans are admitting to increasing the deficit by $4 trillion by > >> making the Bush tax cuts permanent. And they won't say what they plan > >> to cut from the budget in order to pay for it. Once again, we're back > >> in the early Bush years with so-called fiscal conservatives engaged in > >> big, irresponsible spending without any way to make up the shortfall. > >> > >> Actually, the only spending cuts that appear to be on the table are > >> the Social Security checks, the Medicare reimbursements and the > >> veteran's benefits that will stop when the Republicans gleefully shut > >> down the government. (Any senior citizen who votes Republican is > >> voting for their Social Security and Medicare checks to stop -- > >> indefinitely. Just thought I'd mention that.) > >> > >> Circling back, it's important to repeat: President Obama and the > >> congressional Democrats cut the deficit. Fact: The first Obama budget > >> was billions less than the final Bush budget. And, in the process, > >> President Obama's policies have pushed the DJIA from 6,000 to 11,000; > >> his policies have turned Bush-era job losses into job creation; and > >> pulled the nation from the brink of another Great Depression. > >> > >> Again, why are the Republicans against all of this? > >> > >> By the same token, why are they against the stimulus? They really > >> won't say other than to screech about how expensive it was. But, > >> before we go further, read the paragraph about the deficit again. The > >> Democrats cut the deficit. And then factor into the mix that $288 > >> billion out of the $800 billion cost of the recovery act was composed > >> entirely of tax cuts. Tax cuts! As a matter of history and taken as a > >> lump sum, this was the largest American middle class tax cut ever. So > >> it's not a stretch to suggest that the Republicans are suddenly > >> against the largest middle-class tax cut in American history. > >> > >> Despite the attempt to turn a derivation of the positive word > >> "stimulate" into a negative, there's very little about the stimulus > >> that actually sucked, other than the fact that it wasn't big enough. > >> Beyond that, Republican voters need to ask themselves if the tax cuts > >> were bad -- or maybe was it the new roads and infrastructure that > >> helped to create jobs, or was it the money that was spent to keep the > >> states out of bankruptcy and police, teachers and firemen from losing > >> their jobs? What's awful about any of that? > >> > >> Then they need to ask themselves why Republican politicians like Rep. > >> Pete Sessions (R-TX), along with dozens of other Republicans, actually > >> petitioned and received from the Obama administration millions in > >> stimulus dollars? Some of them even posing with giant novelty stimulus > >> checks and literally campaigning on the wads of money they received > >> from the stimulus. Pete Sessions, in fact, wrote to Secretary Ray > >> LaHood and emphasized that the funds would literally "stimulate the > >> economy" in his district. Naturally, Sessions turned around and > >> campaigned against the stimulus. He thinks you won't notice. > >> > >> Elsewhere, Newt Gingrich and others are trying to deceive voters by > >> insisting that it's "liberal math" for an investment to earn a return > >> -- for, say, a one dollar investment to grow into $1.74. Since when do > >> Republicans believe that wise investments are "liberal math?" > >> Specifically, Newt was talking about government spending on food > >> stamps as a means of stimulating the economy. Based on simple math, > >> one dollar in government money spent on food stamps creates $1.74 in > >> economic stimulus, according to Moody's. Why? Because food stamps help > >> Americans to buy things. Whereas the Bush tax cuts, for example, are a > >> poor investment, only earning 32 cents for every dollar spent. Why? > >> Because rich people tend to save their tax cuts rather than pumping > >> that money into the marketplace. > >> > >> Back to our refrain: Why are the Republicans against smart investing? > >> > >> Yeah, Obamacare and the Stimulus. Destroying America from within, right? > >> > >> It's worth noting here that this same Republican deception runs across > >> other issues as well. Republicans are suggesting they'll protect > >> individual liberty, while shrinking government small enough to fit > >> into your bedroom or your uterus. Or they're running on the > >> Constitution, while also having their hired thugs handcuff and detain > >> a reporter in a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Hell, some > >> Republicans are running for U.S. Senate while opposing the 17th > >> Amendment that established popular elections of senators. Wrap your > >> head around that one. > >> > >> Sure, there are still many things the Democrats have yet to unravel > >> after 30 years of Reaganomics. But, despite their obvious faults, > >> they're moving in that direction. And they're being as honest as > >> politicians can be with their intentions. The Republicans, meanwhile, > >> are running on some sort of Mobius Loop of backwards logic and flimsy, > >> if not totally destructive, policy positions. > >> > >> With less than two weeks to go, the sooner voters wise up to this > >> Republican flimflam, the better off we'll all be. > >> > >> More: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-republican-swindle-ab_b_7... > >> -- > >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > >> Have a great day, > >> Tommy > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > Have a great day, > Tommy > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Mark M. Kahle H. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
