Lots Of News, But...

[Guest]

Is the news of the day really important? Or is the public again (still) being willingly distracted from the stuff that really will change their lives?

Here are some samples from today's TV and print news...
Two different polls reported today showed President Obama leading by 8 points in one poll, and Governor Romney leading by a like amount in another poll. Of course, there were different states included in the polls of what they called "battleground states". I guess the press has given everyone something to be happy about this morning!

Lots of back and forth between the GOP and the Dems over the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare. Now that the Court has ruled based on their interpretation that the program is a tax, the Romney campaign is apoplectic in explaining that almost the same program which he sponsored in Massachusetts wasn't a tax, but rather was based on "penalties or fees". All the noise seems to avoid much discussion that the taxes or fees or penalties will effect only about 1% of the people in either Massachusetts or in the entire country.

How about Glaxo-SmithKline, one of the world's largest drug companies, pleading guilty and agreeing to $3 billion fine for Medicare fraud. That amount exceeds the $2.3 billion fine for the same offense levied on Pfizer last year. Any discussion on whether these private sector drug companies can be trusted to operate in the public's best interest? Nah, I'd say just another demonstration that the free market system really has become based more on the famous Gordon Gecko advice to college students in the movie Wall Street..."greed is good."
Did anyone find any reports on the very active diplomacy going on to prevent Iran's threat to close off the Straight of Hormuz, shutting off more than half of the world's supply of oil? Nah, the public isn't interested in that sort of boring stuff.

How about today's report that the negotiations between the allies and Syria to stop the killing and oppression in that country has failed, fallen flat to the objections of Russia? That report fell lower on the Daily Sun's news "food chain" than Rubio's book-selling visit to The Villages, the hot weather, a local art fair, a record-sized crocodile, and a new traffic light in Lady Lake.

Anyone find anything on what's being done to stop the national debt from rising at the rate of $1.4 billion per day? Or how about what Congress will do about the impending large tax increases and damaging spending cuts resulting from their failure, and the failure of the super committee to reach any sort of agreement? Nope. There's all kinds of more interesting political stuff that the public wants to hear about...Eric Holder's conviction for contempt of Congress (even though they really are contemptable!), continued loud public talk about repealing ObamaCare (even though no one has suggested an alternative), whether Mitt Romney really decided to send jobs to other countries, or how President Obama all by himself is responsible for the increasing budget deficit and rising national debt. That's all stuff that gets people's juices flowing!
Well at least we're being spared any soundbites from members of Congress...they're on summer vacation!

[Guest]

Is the news of the day really important? Or is the public again (still) being willingly distracted from the stuff that really will change their lives?

Here are some samples from today's TV and print news...
Two different polls reported today showed President Obama leading by 8 points in one poll, and Governor Romney leading by a like amount in another poll. Of course, there were different states included in the polls of what they called "battleground states". I guess the press has given everyone something to be happy about this morning!

Lots of back and forth between the GOP and the Dems over the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare. Now that the Court has ruled based on their interpretation that the program is a tax, the Romney campaign is apoplectic in explaining that almost the same program which he sponsored in Massachusetts wasn't a tax, but rather was based on "penalties or fees". All the noise seems to avoid much discussion that the taxes or fees or penalties will effect only about 1% of the people in either Massachusetts or in the entire country.

How about Glaxo-SmithKline, one of the world's largest drug companies, pleading guilty and agreeing to $3 billion fine for Medicare fraud. That amount exceeds the $2.3 billion fine for the same offense levied on Pfizer last year. Any discussion on whether these private sector drug companies can be trusted to operate in the public's best interest? Nah, I'd say just another demonstration that the free market system really has become based more on the famous Gordon Gecko advice to college students in the movie Wall Street..."greed is good."
Did anyone find any reports on the very active diplomacy going on to prevent Iran's threat to close off the Straight of Hormuz, shutting off more than half of the world's supply of oil? Nah, the public isn't interested in that sort of boring stuff.

How about today's report that the negotiations between the allies and Syria to stop the killing and oppression in that country has failed, fallen flat to the objections of Russia? That report fell lower on the Daily Sun's news "food chain" than Rubio's book-selling visit to The Villages, the hot weather, a local art fair, a record-sized crocodile, and a new traffic light in Lady Lake.

Anyone find anything on what's being done to stop the national debt from rising at the rate of $1.4 billion per day? Or how about what Congress will do about the impending large tax increases and damaging spending cuts resulting from their failure, and the failure of the super committee to reach any sort of agreement? Nope. There's all kinds of more interesting political stuff that the public wants to hear about...Eric Holder's conviction for contempt of Congress (even though they really are contemptable!), continued loud public talk about repealing ObamaCare (even though no one has suggested an alternative), whether Mitt Romney really decided to send jobs to other countries, or how President Obama all by himself is responsible for the increasing budget deficit and rising national debt. That's all stuff that gets people's juices flowing!
Well at least we're being spared any soundbites from members of Congress...they're on summer vacation!

Despite, IN MY VIEW, your last bullet point being a small defense of Obama, and I said that is MY VIEW, I would agree and good luck getting anyone to care about that stuff. Any thread I have begun on the ME is met with great silence.

I might add to your list, and I know you wont agree, the silence on paying for the health care bill but then again that is a few years away.....why worry about 98% of the cost coming due then based on "maybes" Why does not the press discuss this and why in a country where even you compare us to Greece are we not concerned that we just keep spending spending and adding taxes in a few years....oh well, guess that is not important at all.

I would love to hear folks talk about Syria and Russia, the one that everyone said Romney was talking about stupidily.....about the ME in general. I am not sure that Egypt is going to be such a great ally and the entire ME looks shaky to me. I realize before anyone tells me that we should mind our own business but as you VK keep reminding us, this world is so "small" right now, they are as close neighbors. and in fact read about a plot or fake plot or whatever to blow up a plane in conjunction with the Olympics.

[Guest]

stat last night on TV....40% of Americans knew nothing about Supreme Court ruling on healthcare.

[Guest]

stat last night on TV....40% of Americans knew nothing about Supreme Court ruling on healthcare.

Thats incredible......I heard a talk show host on the radio last night say that everyone will always remember where they were when the news broke...incrediblle.

Well, when the bill comes in they will know :)

[Guest]

Despite, IN MY VIEW, your last bullet point being a small defense of Obama, and I said that is MY VIEW...

I might add to your list, and I know you wont agree, the silence on paying for the health care bill but then again that is a few years away.....why worry about 98% of the cost coming due then based on "maybes" ...Bucco, again I find it almost unbeleiveable that you somehow find a few words in each of my posts that you believe to be a defense of your hated and distrusted president. Oh well, to each his own.

Here's another that I'm sure you'll interpret as a defense of the POTUS. The Congressional Budget Office "scores" legislation (determines it's cost) based solely on the assumptions provided to them by the Congress itself. The CBO by law is not permitted to introduce its own assumptions, or "maybes" as you call them. I suspect that your implication is that the any favorable scoring results from the president's assumptions. That is incorrect. The CBO can only score based on the assumptions provided to them by the House of Representatives. The POTUS or even the minority party has little to say about what assumptions are given to the CBO.

So in the case of ObamaCare, that's why the public sees wild swings in the scoring of legislation. It depends on who has the majority. When ObamaCare was passed, the Democrats had the majority and told the CBO what assumptions to use. Now that the GOP has assumed the majority in the 2010 mid-term elections, they give the CBO new assumptions (self-serving politically presumably), and the CBO comes up with wildly different projections.

An example might be the "repeal ObamaCare" bill recently passed by the House. It was only two pages long, saying little more than "repeal the ACA bill"...no detail, no replacements. Yet the assumptions they provided the CBO basically said that the "savings" would amount to the projected costs from the scoring that the GOP had re-done when they assumed the majority. There were no assumptions on any healthcare cost increases that might result from reversing the ACA bill.

All this proves, unfortunately, is that "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the liars are in the House of Representatives, not the White House.

[Guest]

Wanna know what is important to me (prolly not, but I'm gonna tell you anyway) today? Three things:

1. market is +72 as I write this at 12,943.
2. yankees lost last night.
3. EV map (that was 100% accurate in 2008) shows obama with 326 EV's

[Guest]

Bucco, again I find it almost unbeleiveable that you somehow find a few words in each of my posts that you believe to be a defense of your hated and distrusted president. Oh well, to each his own.

Here's another that I'm sure you'll interpret as a defense of the POTUS. The Congressional Budget Office "scores" legislation (determines it's cost) based solely on the assumptions provided to them by the Congress itself. The CBO by law is not permitted to introduce its own assumptions, or "maybes" as you call them. I suspect that your implication is that the any favorable scoring results from the president's assumptions. That is incorrect. The CBO can only score based on the assumptions provided to them by the House of Representatives. The POTUS or even the minority party has little to say about what assumptions are given to the CBO.

So in the case of ObamaCare, that's why the public sees wild swings in the scoring of legislation. It depends on who has the majority. When ObamaCare was passed, the Democrats had the majority and told the CBO what assumptions to use. Now that the GOP has assumed the majority in the 2010 mid-term elections, they give the CBO new assumptions (self-serving politically presumably), and the CBO comes up with wildly different projections.

An example might be the "repeal ObamaCare" bill recently passed by the House. It was only two pages long, saying little more than "repeal the ACA bill"...no detail, no replacements. Yet the assumptions they provided the CBO basically said that the "savings" would amount to the projected costs from the scoring that the GOP had re-done when they assumed the majority. There were no assumptions on any healthcare cost increases that might result from reversing the ACA bill.

All this proves, unfortunately, is that "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the liars are in the House of Representatives, not the White House.

Good points - I am paying attention, but I have no comment.

[Guest]

Bucco, again I find it almost unbeleiveable that you somehow find a few words in each of my posts that you believe to be a defense of your hated and distrusted president. Oh well, to each his own.

Here's another that I'm sure you'll interpret as a defense of the POTUS. The Congressional Budget Office "scores" legislation (determines it's cost) based solely on the assumptions provided to them by the Congress itself. The CBO by law is not permitted to introduce its own assumptions, or "maybes" as you call them. I suspect that your implication is that the any favorable scoring results from the president's assumptions. That is incorrect. The CBO can only score based on the assumptions provided to them by the House of Representatives. The POTUS or even the minority party has little to say about what assumptions are given to the CBO.

So in the case of ObamaCare, that's why the public sees wild swings in the scoring of legislation. It depends on who has the majority. When ObamaCare was passed, the Democrats had the majority and told the CBO what assumptions to use. Now that the GOP has assumed the majority in the 2010 mid-term elections, they give the CBO new assumptions (self-serving politically presumably), and the CBO comes up with wildly different projections.

An example might be the "repeal ObamaCare" bill recently passed by the House. It was only two pages long, saying little more than "repeal the ACA bill"...no detail, no replacements. Yet the assumptions they provided the CBO basically said that the "savings" would amount to the projected costs from the scoring that the GOP had re-done when they assumed the majority. There were no assumptions on any healthcare cost increases that might result from reversing the ACA bill.

All this proves, unfortunately, is that "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the liars are in the House of Representatives, not the White House.

Ah, more critical info! I knew the CBO projections did not include the entire balance sheet of costs and revenues, but not that the CBO was actually limited to such a partisan view of real final costs. This takes even more wind out of the ACA critics' sails.

Again, Bucco et al. Kindly and respectfully, we have heard you continually restating your wholesale conclusion that ACA should be repealed. We've also heard enough about the Obama-led cabal which is to blame in myriad ways for this travesty.

Please, please, let's move on. Let's concentrate on any specific provisions, find any evidence that they are net negatives, and why they need to be seriously revised or dropped from the plan.

[Guest]

Ah, more critical info! I knew the CBO projections did not include the entire balance sheet of costs and revenues, but not that the CBO was actually limited to such a partisan view of real final costs. This takes even more wind out of the ACA critics' sails.

Again, Bucco et al. Kindly and respectfully, we have heard you continually restating your wholesale conclusion that ACA should be repealed. We've also heard enough about the Obama-led cabal which is to blame in myriad ways for this travesty.

Please, please, let's move on. Let's concentrate on any specific provisions, find any evidence that they are net negatives, and why they need to be seriously revised or dropped from the plan.


Just to correct you, as you seem to assume a lot about me, I NEVER posted nor uttered the words about repealing the law. NOT ONCE.

I cannot back away from Obama being responsible although he, himself is distancing from it, but I have said numerous times on this forum, the only positive from his campaign, FOR ME, was his promises on healthcare. Although he just dropped most of what he said, there are enough good things, in my opinion to save it perhaps.

And I suggest you read the bill funding a bit more closely....it is STILL filled with so many IFS...ANDS and MAYBES and financed so far in the future it is just scary to me because if you read it, much of the stuff used to pay for the bill just aint gonna happen

[Guest]

Just to correct you, as you seem to assume a lot about me, I NEVER posted nor uttered the words about repealing the law. NOT ONCE.

I cannot back away from Obama being responsible although he, himself is distancing from it, but I have said numerous times on this forum, the only positive from his campaign, FOR ME, was his promises on healthcare. Although he just dropped most of what he said, there are enough good things, in my opinion to save it perhaps.

And I suggest you read the bill funding a bit more closely....it is STILL filled with so many IFS...ANDS and MAYBES and financed so far in the future it is just scary to me because if you read it, much of the stuff used to pay for the bill just aint gonna happen

"there are enough good things, in my opinion to save it perhaps".

This is the most positive thing I've seen in your many, many references to ACA. And with your long-time orientation toward the Republican agenda, combined with your deep distrust of Barack Obama, I think it is an extraordinarily open minded statement. Good show!

Now back to the agenda. Can you specify a provision of ACA which should definitely be revised or dropped?

And, can you tell me WHAT the "much of the stuff used to pay for the bill" is, and WHY "it just aint gonna happen".

[Guest]

Ah, more critical info! I knew the CBO projections did not include the entire balance sheet of costs and revenues, but not that the CBO was actually limited to such a partisan view of real final costs. This takes even more wind out of the ACA critics' sails.

Again, Bucco et al. Kindly and respectfully, we have heard you continually restating your wholesale conclusion that ACA should be repealed. We've also heard enough about the Obama-led cabal which is to blame in myriad ways for this travesty.

Please, please, let's move on. Let's concentrate on any specific provisions, find any evidence that they are net negatives, and why they need to be seriously revised or dropped from the plan.

BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM would be my start.

This bill has got to be HEAVILY reworked for how we pay for it. This country is in trouble financially and this may be the thing to push us over the edge.

1. …..They are telling us that this bill will reduce the deficit; one of the ways that the Dems put this together was
that cost justification includes….FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES PAID TO THE USA BY THOSE FOLKS WHO WILL GET PAY RAISES
PEOPLE WILL GET IN LIEU OF INSURANCE BENEFITS. This, if you do the math is just not going to work.

2….IN 2018 insurance companies will pay a 40% excise tax on so called high end insurance policies. Do you think
the insurance industry had a hand in making it 2018 and do you think it will ever happen ?


3….Next year the Medicaire payroll tax will include unearned income, a 3.8 tax on investment income for individuals
over $200.000 and families over 250,000 on investment income. This is going to affect our economy and jobs in a very negative way

These are the main driving ways to pay for this bill. Do any of them sound anywhere near a sure thing…this is what I have been
referring to for a year as a lot of "maybes"

This, to me, makes this bill shaky at best relative to being paid for. There is nothing in this
payment plan that comes close to being real….a lot of maybes. This has been my concern from the very beginnings. Frankly I thought the SCOTUS would send it back and it would need reworking but as the court said, they do not rule on bad law.

The governors told Obama that the cost to many states on the Medicaid issue would be just too much for states to handle.
They still put it in and the SCOTUS ruled that they could opt out because they recognize this. Right now, it is a political
thing where Republicans governors will try to opt out and Dem, of course will want it. There is a real and genuine cost
to each state to even just set this program up and since it is an election year it will stay on the political side as far as
"SAYING" they will opt in or out. TRUST ME, they have three years, I think to get this together and there will be a
lot of states who just cannot afford it, Dem and Rep. This will raise the cost to the federal govt
and they did not plan for this because they did not expect the SCOTUS ruling. They had already told the states
it was mandatory and they could not opt out.
THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF WISCONSINS IN THE YEARS TO COME.

I desparetly think the cost MUST COME DOWN.

I have no idea nor have I seen a "menu" of items in the bill
and the associated costs thus I cannot come up with a "plan" that would encompass cost and benefits. But the bill does not even address COSTS of health care nor does it entertain any TORT REFORM.

VK came up with some ideas for paying, and maybe a new congress can address the issues. I like much of what is in the bill, but we keep being warned about the upcoming financial crap (Bush tax cuts, etc) and then we pile this on. I think everyone likes what they read they will get but WOW...I would love a Cadillac but just cannot afford it.

I hope you dont consider this too negative but I cannot get the costs, not only to the country, but to the states out of mind. We do not have a bottomless pit of money !

[Guest]

I have no idea nor have I seen a "menu" of items in the bill
and the associated costs thus I cannot come up with a "plan" that would encompass cost and benefits.


I guess this is what I mean by jumping to conclusions. While you have fixed on what you regard as the impossibility of paying for ACA without increasing the deficit, you admit you have no specific facts to back up your deep fears. As has been presented by a couple of posters, there are a number of potential and reasonable sources of revenue to cover ACA costs, not to AGAIN mention the offsetting revenues which are built into a plan which includes an additional 50 million participants.

I'll state again - Not just mine, but our country's glass is half full.

We have beaten this hypothetical horse to death. Lets move from fears about costs to analyzing ACA provisions which need to be changed or dropped. Got any?

[Guest]

Thats incredible......I heard a talk show host on the radio last night say that everyone will always remember where they were when the news broke...incrediblle.

Well, when the bill comes in they will know :)

I remember where I was when JFK was killed. This? :icon_bored: It is merely a distraction beefed up to avoid the main issues.

[Guest]

Surprising as a review of some posters comments on this thread regarding ObamaCare seem to understand the long term implications of this 2000 page document that was put together faster than a pizza at a pizza shop. Even Speaker of the House Nancy (straight face) Pelosi acknowledged that the bill had to be passed before they knew what was in it. That's the same way pizza guys in New York make pizza. They can't tell a customer what is in it until it comes out of the oven

Voters have a general distrust of the government and rightly so based on so many years of failures produced by these guardians of the people for the people and by the people. And now we have Pelosi acknowledging before its finished that they don't know what's in it. Hmmmm

We do know that it contains over 20 tax increases. and we do know that millions upon millions of people will immediately be entitled to full medical coverages.....and with an aging population I smell a lot of free face lifts. And we do know that health care providers stocks jumped through the ceiling following the Supreme courts 5-4 majority. And finally we do know that taxpayers whether they like it or not will be paying for abortions.


We do know that at the end of the year the Bush era tax cuts will end, the termporary payroll tax cut will end. We know that 1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the decade are poised to begin. We know that the extended jobless benefits will expire and that the government is approaching the legal limits on borrowing . (Fiscal cliff)

We know for instance that one of the taxes in ObamaCare is a 3.8 % tax on investment income and that added to the increase in investment taxes suggested by Obama will cut investment income by some 30%

We know that the CBO has continually revised its estimate because politicians keeping playing games with the facts. so we know or we don't know how much over budget this program will really be. But we know the government is always over budget because we know taxes grow on trees.

We know corporations are on edge because of all of this "uncertainty" and so they, and rightfully so, sit on piles of cash. I mean who could blame them..Try buying a car when the sales guy continually changes the asking price We need 50,000 no 48,000 no 62,000.

Can anyone on this thread point to one instance when the government costs came under budget? How many bridges to nowhere have they built? And in this present Administration we note a favor of butter over guns leaving us in a similar defensless position as we had in the beginning of WWII and when Clinton Administration.

What struck me most in this thread was that the OP main theme was distractions and following his posts that's all posters did, distraction after diastraction after distraction. voters appear invested in issues like ObamaCare, and I call it ObamaCare because this ego-driven manaic actually beleives he will one day be looked upon as another Lincoln and this will be part of his legacy. Well I call it insanity and so do better than 52- 54% of the population depending on what poll you believe.

"We the people" are being taken for a ride and our loyalty is misplaced whether you are Democrat or Republican because in either party they are eating our lunch.

I said it before, I am afraid that our failing educational system has done its work because most voters are cluless, non-caring and too busy with rock and roll and such things and politicians go about weaving their webbs for America's destruction

My pleas (e-mails, letters, phone calls) to them are not based on the "party agenda" but rather on providing sound leadership and making tough and consistent choices that will spur the economy back

I opine others can decide.

[Guest]

Ride, daddy, ride! :(

[Guest]

all one has to do is go back and read the reports issued by the federal office on budget management. They were waving the red flag when the bill was being rammed through. They waved it again here a couple of weeks before the courts rolled over.

Some how what they say never ever gets reported on by ANYBODY. And of course as evidenced by Washington's drunken spending business as usual, none of them pay attention to the red flag.....ever.

btk