Park Life 71 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Elite stooge or clever well meaning black man? Edited July 14, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 A cage fighter in America made a tongue in cheek comment recently that he would like to get Obama into a cage to fight him. He was then visited by 2 secret service agents to warn him about any future comments. If that's not silly enough he then got suspended from his job as a part time wrestling coach at a local school! Aaah America, the land of the free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Was he a muslim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 He volunteered at the school btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What would have been different if Bush was still in? All Americans wouldn't be supplied/obliged to buy healthcare. Gays would have to be quiet about serving in the military. Which is great....but were those anything to do with the main criticisms of Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 A cage fighter in America made a tongue in cheek comment recently that he would like to get Obama into a cage to fight him. He was then visited by 2 secret service agents to warn him about any future comments. If that's not silly enough he then got suspended from his job as a part time wrestling coach at a local school! Aaah America, the land of the free! In two minds wether to unload on him or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008. The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/200...g#ixzz1AvHyh0aP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.slate.com/id/2215818/ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...0/09/27/privacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheMag 4 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 To be fair, Obama hasn't been able to do much because of the mess Bush left him. He's had his hands tied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 To be fair, Obama hasn't been able to do much because of the mess Bush left him. He's had his hands tied. I see. Bush was a corporate crony so Obama HAD to make every appointment of his own a corporate lapdog. Bush was torturing foreigners abroad so Obama HAD to start authorising the assassination of US citizens without charge. Bush had given tax cuts to the wealthy....so Obama HAD to extend them when they ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheMag 4 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 assassination of US citizens? did I miss something? And I'm not trying to say that Obama is perfect and everything is Bush's fault, but Obama's work wasn't made any easier by the failings of the previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/mi...st/07yemen.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It seems like Happy Face is unerestimating the turning circle of America. It's not as easy as blithely changing policy, it's going to take time, but it's hard to argue that Obama isn't at least trying to turn things around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It seems like Happy Face is unerestimating the turning circle of America. It's not as easy as blithely changing policy, it's going to take time, but it's hard to argue that Obama isn't at least trying to turn things around. I can't see how any of the examples above are the start of even the biggest turning circle. How are they anything but full steam ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." His healthcare bill dropped tens of millions of new paying customers into the lap of the health insurance industry....they lobbied in favour of his changes.....omitting a public option. Very much a corporate stooge on that score. His rhetoric was of a public option, which he dropped once in power. He didn't affect the change he promised. No-one in washington is double dealing....they're all pulling in the same direction. Corporate ownership of state. Edited January 14, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 189 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Jesus incarnate. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Snake oil salesman at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." His healthcare bill dropped tens of millions of new paying customers into the lap of the health insurance industry....they lobbied in favour of his changes.....omitting a public option. Very much a corporate stooge on that score. His rhetoric was of a public option, which he dropped once in power. He didn't affect the change he promised. No-one in washington is double dealing....they're all pulling in the same direction. Corporate ownership of state. The reform bill requires the industry to pay over $100 billion in cash to the government for funding. The impact of the additional insured population depends on the price they pay, which will be driven down by insurance exchanges. The cost to the population of any insurance will be high because healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US because of the huge remuneration to doctors. A jobbing oncologist earns half a million dollars a year. Paid for via fee for service reimbursement from public and private insurance. The return to the insurance industry in terms of profit is not clear, revenues will go up but their fear is this will not be enough to compensate for the increased costs of providing healthcare to people who are paying lower and lower premiums, who are the least healthiest and have the highest costs. The increased population with access to drugs will be offset for pharma from downward price pressure from the insurance companies on prices. Medicare and Medicaid will set price limits for drugs outside of the private market as they are squeezed by federal budget cost pressures. Tiered pricing schemes for newly insured patients will further reduce actual prices (rather than what are called WAC or list prices). Whilst these effects are playing out, both industries are subsidising healthcare reform directly. Corporate stooge my fat arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." His healthcare bill dropped tens of millions of new paying customers into the lap of the health insurance industry....they lobbied in favour of his changes.....omitting a public option. Very much a corporate stooge on that score. His rhetoric was of a public option, which he dropped once in power. He didn't affect the change he promised. No-one in washington is double dealing....they're all pulling in the same direction. Corporate ownership of state. The reform bill requires the industry to pay over $100 billion in cash to the government for funding. The impact of the additional insured population depends on the price they pay, which will be driven down by insurance exchanges. The cost to the population of any insurance will be high because healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US because of the huge remuneration to doctors. A jobbing oncologist earns half a million dollars a year. Paid for via fee for service reimbursement from public and private insurance. The return to the insurance industry in terms of profit is not clear, revenues will go up but their fear is this will not be enough to compensate for the increased costs of providing healthcare to people who are paying lower and lower premiums, who are the least healthiest and have the highest costs. The increased population with access to drugs will be offset for pharma from downward price pressure from the insurance companies on prices. Medicare and Medicaid will set price limits for drugs outside of the private market as they are squeezed by federal budget cost pressures. Tiered pricing schemes for newly insured patients will further reduce actual prices (rather than what are called WAC or list prices). Whilst these effects are playing out, both industries are subsidising healthcare reform directly. Corporate stooge my fat arse. None of that backs up Fish's claim he's affected the change promised in his early rhetoric. What period is that $100Bn coming in from the insurers over btw? Never heard that figure and the combined profits of the top 5 suppliers are only about a tenth of that aren't they? Edited January 14, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 189 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Elite stooge or clever well meaning black man? Quick question Parky, why bring race into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Elite stooge or clever well meaning black man? Quick question Parky, why bring race into it? It's been pivotal in stopping liberals criticising him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 189 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Elite stooge or clever well meaning black man? Quick question Parky, why bring race into it? It's been pivotal in stopping liberals criticising him jajaajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." His healthcare bill dropped tens of millions of new paying customers into the lap of the health insurance industry....they lobbied in favour of his changes.....omitting a public option. Very much a corporate stooge on that score. His rhetoric was of a public option, which he dropped once in power. He didn't affect the change he promised. No-one in washington is double dealing....they're all pulling in the same direction. Corporate ownership of state. The reform bill requires the industry to pay over $100 billion in cash to the government for funding. The impact of the additional insured population depends on the price they pay, which will be driven down by insurance exchanges. The cost to the population of any insurance will be high because healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US because of the huge remuneration to doctors. A jobbing oncologist earns half a million dollars a year. Paid for via fee for service reimbursement from public and private insurance. The return to the insurance industry in terms of profit is not clear, revenues will go up but their fear is this will not be enough to compensate for the increased costs of providing healthcare to people who are paying lower and lower premiums, who are the least healthiest and have the highest costs. The increased population with access to drugs will be offset for pharma from downward price pressure from the insurance companies on prices. Medicare and Medicaid will set price limits for drugs outside of the private market as they are squeezed by federal budget cost pressures. Tiered pricing schemes for newly insured patients will further reduce actual prices (rather than what are called WAC or list prices). Whilst these effects are playing out, both industries are subsidising healthcare reform directly. Corporate stooge my fat arse. None of that backs up Fish's claim he's affected the change promised in his early rhetoric. What period is that $100Bn coming in from the insurers over btw? Never heard that figure and the combined profits of the top 5 suppliers are only about a tenth of that aren't they? He couldnt even affect a watered down version because of resistance. He lost the mid-terms because centrist voters have dropped him, not because of disaffected lefties abstaining. The $100bn is coming from pharma, not insurance. I presume they have to pay too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I know what you're saying. It doesn't appear to be a shift in policy. However, I don't believe that Obama is simply a corporate stooge, his healthcare bill alone proves he's not afraid to affect the change he promised in his early rhetoric. I'm of the opinion Obama is hamstrung by entrenched corruption and doubledealing in Washington, but also that he's not above it himself. to quote West Wing. "But I'll tell you what sir, in a battle between a president's demons and his better angels, I think for the first time in a long while, we may just have ourselves a fair fight." His healthcare bill dropped tens of millions of new paying customers into the lap of the health insurance industry....they lobbied in favour of his changes.....omitting a public option. Very much a corporate stooge on that score. His rhetoric was of a public option, which he dropped once in power. He didn't affect the change he promised. No-one in washington is double dealing....they're all pulling in the same direction. Corporate ownership of state. The reform bill requires the industry to pay over $100 billion in cash to the government for funding. The impact of the additional insured population depends on the price they pay, which will be driven down by insurance exchanges. The cost to the population of any insurance will be high because healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US because of the huge remuneration to doctors. A jobbing oncologist earns half a million dollars a year. Paid for via fee for service reimbursement from public and private insurance. The return to the insurance industry in terms of profit is not clear, revenues will go up but their fear is this will not be enough to compensate for the increased costs of providing healthcare to people who are paying lower and lower premiums, who are the least healthiest and have the highest costs. The increased population with access to drugs will be offset for pharma from downward price pressure from the insurance companies on prices. Medicare and Medicaid will set price limits for drugs outside of the private market as they are squeezed by federal budget cost pressures. Tiered pricing schemes for newly insured patients will further reduce actual prices (rather than what are called WAC or list prices). Whilst these effects are playing out, both industries are subsidising healthcare reform directly. Corporate stooge my fat arse. None of that backs up Fish's claim he's affected the change promised in his early rhetoric. What period is that $100Bn coming in from the insurers over btw? Never heard that figure and the combined profits of the top 5 suppliers are only about a tenth of that aren't they? He couldnt even affect a watered down version because of resistance. He lost the mid-terms because centrist voters have dropped him, not because of disaffected lefties abstaining. The $100bn is coming from pharma, not insurance. I presume they have to pay too. So that's a different matter....it was an insurance blowjob. If you think losing centrals lost him the election then I think you're completely wrong. He lost Everyone who wouldn't usually vote....but were inspired to vote by his inspirational 2008 promise of the world....ending wars, stopping torture, universal healthcare. Edited January 14, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 See I don't think Obama is a stooge, I think that despite his good intentions, America is so entangled in the pocket of big business that it would take decades for him to actually deliver the changes he's promised. I really believe that two terms of Obama and a cessation of sensational rhetoric from the extremists from both parties and you would begin to see a more progressive America. One unafraid of terms like Socialism and Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now