First in 1998 he was against the mandate in health care, I suppose because it interfered with his political agenda....

"The Supreme Court seems poised to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, based partly on an argument that President Barack Obama used to attack former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s healthcare plan in 2008, according to Daily Mail Washington correspondent Toby Harnden.

Writing Thursday in his Mail Online blog, Harnden recalled how then-Sen. Obama railed against the idea that government could force individuals to buy health insurance. His attacks came in speeches and in ads he ran against Clinton during their long battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination."

Flashback: Obama Argued Against Mandate in 2008

Then on tax breaks for oil companies....

"White House press secretary Jay Carney had no answer as to why Obama supported tax breaks for oil companies as a Senator in 2005, but now opposes them as President.

Henry: Why did the President vote for the energy bill in 2005 as a Senator that had over $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry? They were making a lot of money then too.

Carney: What I can tell you Ed is that the oil and gas companies in this country are making record profits, now, in 2012. The price at the pump is very high and that is plenty of incentive for these companies to continue drill, to continue to explore, to continue to develop energy sources here in the United States and abroad. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize that activity.

Henry: So why’d he vote for it?

Carney: I haven’t examined the vote, or what the prices were at the time, or the whole bill it was attached to. What I know and what the President knows is that this year, 2012, when we are seeing high prices at the pump, high prices in the international oil markets and high profits for the oil and gas companies, there is no reason to continue these kinds of subsidies. Take that argument to the people, I don’t think they’ll go along with it."

Carney Asked Why Obama Supported Tax Breaks For Oil Companies In 2005 | RealClearPolitics

YET, those who support him do not, cannot, or refuse to see what he is all about.

Alot has changed since 2005

Thank you so much for that information.

Originally Posted by jflynn1

Alot has changed since 2005

In my opinion, things have gotten much better. I live in The Villages and last year due to improvements in the economy I received a nice raise to my retirement income. All thanks to the current administration in Washington bringing our country back to a healthy state.

Originally Posted by jflynn1

Alot has changed since 2005

With all due respect....WHAT specifically ? And the individual mandate was in 2008 but one at a time...what has changed ?

Point is the man is a symbol of saying whatever he needs to say to further him. ALL are the total opposite of how he sold himself to everyone, and it was a sale.

Yes...all politicians will do this, but you were sold something different if you recall....and being President of the United States carries some responsibility and I am simply showing he conned everyone and there is so much more.

Originally Posted by Bucco

With all due respect....WHAT specifically ? And the individual mandate was in 2008 but one at a time...what has changed ?

Point is the man is a symbol of saying whatever he needs to say to further him. ALL are the total opposite of how he sold himself to everyone, and it was a sale.

Yes...all politicians will do this, but you were sold something different if you recall....and being President of the United States carries some responsibility and I am simply showing he conned everyone and there is so much more.

That may be the opinion of some, but what I remember most was Obama promising me my life would be better if he was elected. He was in fact elected and my life is much much better, so in my opinion, JOB WELL DONE.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

That may be the opinion of some, but what I remember most was Obama promising me my life would be better if he was elected. He was in fact elected and my life is much much better, so in my opinion, JOB WELL DONE.

Second the motion!!!!!

have you looked at why your life is better to know it was because of some specific that he accomplished that affected you. Or is it more that it happened on his watch, hence he gets the credit.

There has been very little in my estimation that can be pointed to that Obama enacted that ended up in a result that can be quantified.

Even the slaying of OBL is one of those events that happened on his watch.....until I learn what he did to make it happen, not just authorized (another on his watch opportunity).

I believe in promises kept measuring. I only believe in show me what you said would happen....what one did to make it happen....did it happen when he said it would happen....what were the results of what he did....measurable accountability of implementation of an initiation. All foreign actions to politicians.

I am always ready to learn and understand the specifics of a result.

btk

Originally Posted by The Villager II

In my opinion, things have gotten much better. I live in The Villages and last year due to improvements in the economy I received a nice raise to my retirement income. All thanks to the current administration in Washington bringing our country back to a healthy state.

VII While I am pleased for your monetary gain, you might want to attempt to identify what economic decision Obama made that had a direct affect on your retirement plan. Its more likely in the short run that the Fed has a more profound affect. However the Fed's policies unless recalibrated now will have some long lasting negative affects. For instance while you may have gotten a bump in your retirement cost of living which was pre-determined, retirees are losing interest income on CD's, etc owing to the low or non existent interest rates being held back by the Fed. Make no mistakes Obama's economic policies by definition can not create growth they can only shift incomes around. Since you and I do not have the resources available to us to dodge the big tax bite we will end up on the short end of his agenda. So that nice bump you just got better bank it because if Obama has his way he will be knocking on your door looking for it.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Bucco

First in 1998 he was against the mandate in health care, I suppose because it interfered with his political agenda....

"The Supreme Court seems poised to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, based partly on an argument that President Barack Obama used to attack former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s healthcare plan in 2008, according to Daily Mail Washington correspondent Toby Harnden.

Writing Thursday in his Mail Online blog, Harnden recalled how then-Sen. Obama railed against the idea that government could force individuals to buy health insurance. His attacks came in speeches and in ads he ran against Clinton during their long battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination."

Flashback: Obama Argued Against Mandate in 2008

Then on tax breaks for oil companies....

"White House press secretary Jay Carney had no answer as to why Obama supported tax breaks for oil companies as a Senator in 2005, but now opposes them as President.

Henry: Why did the President vote for the energy bill in 2005 as a Senator that had over $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry? They were making a lot of money then too.

Carney: What I can tell you Ed is that the oil and gas companies in this country are making record profits, now, in 2012. The price at the pump is very high and that is plenty of incentive for these companies to continue drill, to continue to explore, to continue to develop energy sources here in the United States and abroad. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize that activity.

Henry: So why’d he vote for it?

Carney: I haven’t examined the vote, or what the prices were at the time, or the whole bill it was attached to. What I know and what the President knows is that this year, 2012, when we are seeing high prices at the pump, high prices in the international oil markets and high profits for the oil and gas companies, there is no reason to continue these kinds of subsidies. Take that argument to the people, I don’t think they’ll go along with it."

Carney Asked Why Obama Supported Tax Breaks For Oil Companies In 2005 | RealClearPolitics

YET, those who support him do not, cannot, or refuse to see what he is all about.

Bucco,

On the insurance mandate thing. Saying he 'changed his position' is done all the time by political opponents, but it's a contrivance to find a piece of something much bigger and then to use it to prove 'hypocricy'.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Obama had the guts to go "all in" on a health care plan which would finally BEGIN to correct the decline in quality, accessibility and the alarming escalation of health care costs. We all know how long this problem has festered, and worse, where we were headed in the future. We all know the failures of Congress and previous Presidents to find a workable plan, much less one which could be approved by an increasingly divisive Congress.

Sure Obama said the insurance mandate was inappropriate when campaigning against Hillary. ANYBODY would have said that because it is so controversial. The facts are that Obama risked his reputation and political future by insisting on Congress passing the best health care plan he could get. He didn't veto the eventual package, with it's faults, because it contained the historic core of provisions which could make health care finally work and be accessible in this country. If he wasn't at the same time trying to quell the worst financial crisis since the Depression I think he would have insisted the insurance mandate be removed. But with Congress actually noticing the money meltdown and increasing deficit, there had to be something in the bill to pay for the the uninsured.

So Obama let his domestic legacy rest on the flawed law. Many say it was a courageous, exhausting feat which will eventually be recognized as a giant step forward for our society.
Opponents don't seem to really attack the principles that our society should be able to implement a high quality health care system and go beyond only emergency care for the poor, ill or disadvantaged. What opponents attack is Obama, the insurance mandate, spending any large sums of money on health care, too much regulation, not enough regulation, picking on the insurance companies, and helping people who somehow don't deserve to be helped. None of those things are the central issue.

What we should do is to fix those pieces of the law which don't work as intended. This is what the President said when he signed the bill. It may take some years to tweak the provisions so that they work well. My contention is that even with a reluctant Congress and slow improvements, we will be better off five years from now than we are now.

We can go on attacking and blaming, or we can take what we have and make it work. There's proof we've done greater things in our past.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Bucco,

On the insurance mandate thing. Saying he 'changed his position' is done all the time by political opponents, but it's a contrivance to find a piece of something much bigger and then to use it to prove 'hypocricy'.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Obama had the guts to go "all in" on a health care plan which would finally BEGIN to correct the decline in quality, accessibility and the alarming escalation of health care costs. We all know how long this problem has festered, and worse, where we were headed in the future. We all know the failures of Congress and previous Presidents to find a workable plan, much less one which could be approved by an increasingly divisive Congress.

Sure Obama said the insurance mandate was inappropriate when campaigning against Hillary. ANYBODY would have said that because it is so controversial. The facts are that Obama risked his reputation and political future by insisting on Congress passing the best health care plan he could get. He didn't veto the eventual package, with it's faults, because it contained the historic core of provisions which could make health care finally work and be accessible in this country. If he wasn't at the same time trying to quell the worst financial crisis since the Depression I think he would have insisted the insurance mandate be removed. But with Congress actually noticing the money meltdown and increasing deficit, there had to be something in the bill to pay for the the uninsured.

So Obama let his domestic legacy rest on the flawed law. Many say it was a courageous, exhausting feat which will eventually be recognized as a giant step forward for our society.
Opponents don't seem to really attack the principles that our society should be able to implement a high quality health care system and go beyond only emergency care for the poor, ill or disadvantaged. What opponents attack is Obama, the insurance mandate, spending any large sums of money on health care, too much regulation, not enough regulation, picking on the insurance companies, and helping people who somehow don't deserve to be helped. None of those things are the central issue.

What we should do is to fix those pieces of the law which don't work as intended. This is what the President said when he signed the bill. It may take some years to tweak the provisions so that they work well. My contention is that even with a reluctant Congress and slow improvements, we will be better off five years from now than we are now.

We can go on attacking and blaming, or we can take what we have and make it work. There's proof we've done greater things in our past.

I certainly respect your opinion on the mandate comment and totally understand your logic.

In respect to the entire post, on which you ONLY addressed the mandate part, the post was intended to show what this President has done not just as President but all of his adult life going back to his days as a neighborhood organizer. He is such a great speaker, or better said CAN be a great speaker when he wants to that he can sell anything, and he sold us all in 2008 IN MY OPINION. He "soared" above everyone and placed himself in a no win situation because he could never ever fulfill what he promised. I believe him to be a double talker on most issues and I must add that I do not disagree with him on all issues.

The two examples I gave are just TWO....I was opposed to his even getting the candidacy in 2008 and my basic objection was his TOTAL AND COMPLETE lack of any kind of experience in ANY postion of making decisions; Secondly, I totally question his associates and his training. I just finished a book which talks about many historical leaders and mentioned as one common theme with all was the inability to break away from how they were trained and exposed as young men. I read BOTH of his autobiographies and did a lot of reading through archives of the Chicago newspapers BEFORE the campaign of 2008 and the common theme is that he will do what or say what is necessary to proceed along what HE considers the correct road. He will praise and laud a reverend and then simply toss him aside easily when it gets in his way..fact is if you research the primary reason he even joined that church you will find it was for politics.

No sense in beating this to death.....I just get very frustrated when some who adore him will criticize ANYONE WHO DISAGREES but never present a case...never debunk what is said about him,,,,it is blind and it is scary. I have been called so many names because I oppose him, BUT NOBODY ever debates the facts.....that should scare anyone..that kind of blind loyalty is not good.

Ii will accept as your feelings on the mandate issue...one of two that I mentioned.

My thought was that he promised us a national public and open debate on HEALTH COSTS. That he did promise. He never got close to public on anything..he went behind closed doors almost exclusively and actually paid "blackmail" to get the votes necessary to pass it. He actually smiled and made a joke when asked about why not public....that bothers me. The final bill did NOTHING to address health costs....the numbers given to us were a mirage and the CBO continually updates the new costs because so much was based on MAYBES. How can you have such an important bill based on MAYBES ?

NO, I think the hard thing to have done was to ignore the politics...actually have that public debate...remember both sides admitted the problem....doing that would have been courageous AND would have been what he said he would do.

I do respect a thoughtful and sincere post however.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Bucco,

On the insurance mandate thing. Saying he 'changed his position' is done all the time by political opponents, but it's a contrivance to find a piece of something much bigger and then to use it to prove 'hypocricy'.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Obama had the guts to go "all in" on a health care plan which would finally BEGIN to correct the decline in quality, accessibility and the alarming escalation of health care costs. We all know how long this problem has festered, and worse, where we were headed in the future. We all know the failures of Congress and previous Presidents to find a workable plan, much less one which could be approved by an increasingly divisive Congress.

Sure Obama said the insurance mandate was inappropriate when campaigning against Hillary. ANYBODY would have said that because it is so controversial. The facts are that Obama risked his reputation and political future by insisting on Congress passing the best health care plan he could get. He didn't veto the eventual package, with it's faults, because it contained the historic core of provisions which could make health care finally work and be accessible in this country. If he wasn't at the same time trying to quell the worst financial crisis since the Depression I think he would have insisted the insurance mandate be removed. But with Congress actually noticing the money meltdown and increasing deficit, there had to be something in the bill to pay for the the uninsured.

So Obama let his domestic legacy rest on the flawed law. Many say it was a courageous, exhausting feat which will eventually be recognized as a giant step forward for our society.
Opponents don't seem to really attack the principles that our society should be able to implement a high quality health care system and go beyond only emergency care for the poor, ill or disadvantaged. What opponents attack is Obama, the insurance mandate, spending any large sums of money on health care, too much regulation, not enough regulation, picking on the insurance companies, and helping people who somehow don't deserve to be helped. None of those things are the central issue.

What we should do is to fix those pieces of the law which don't work as intended. This is what the President said when he signed the bill. It may take some years to tweak the provisions so that they work well. My contention is that even with a reluctant Congress and slow improvements, we will be better off five years from now than we are now.

We can go on attacking and blaming, or we can take what we have and make it work. There's proof we've done greater things in our past.

Thank you so much for this post. Just as I begin to think, MAYBE THE 6PAC IS RIGHT, you post what I feel about the health care issue but just do not have the ability to say without getting flamed.

Hey folks, this thread is becoming positively civil! Thanks!

So if the debate continues on this, I'd like to home in on what I think is the most important point, the President's decision to go "all in" on health care. At the risk of sounding adoring, I think it was an historic, courageous decision.

I have serious reservations about aspects of the law. I think the insurance mandate is constitutional but still problematic as written. The medicare expansion and reform provisions must be played out to find and fix the weaknesses.

But back to my big picture. We desperately need health care reform. I'm glad someone had the guts to start it and willingness to be attacked by the strongest armies of wealth and power ever assembled. (And just wait for the election superpacs!)

And I think the President's quest, especially in the economic environment we all faced, rather easily brushes aside the more polite accusations of inexperience, double-talk, blackmail, back room politics etc.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Hey folks, this thread is becoming positively civil! Thanks!

So if the debate continues on this, I'd like to home in on what I think is the most important point, the President's decision to go "all in" on health care. At the risk of sounding adoring, I think it was an historic, courageous decision.

I have serious reservations about aspects of the law. I think the insurance mandate is constitutional but still problematic as written. The medicare expansion and reform provisions must be played out to find and fix the weaknesses.

But back to my big picture. We desperately need health care reform. I'm glad someone had the guts to start it and willingness to be attacked by the strongest armies of wealth and power ever assembled. (And just wait for the election superpacs!)

And I think the President's quest, especially in the economic environment we all faced, rather easily brushes aside the more polite accusations of inexperience, double-talk, blackmail, back room politics etc.

Civil is easy actually....there are just a few who find some personal satisfaction in not knowing anything and insuring we all know that by their one line nonsensical posts.

First, want to remind you that this thread was NOT strictly about the mandate in the health care law. The thread was begun to point out how this President, his entire career, says and does whatever is politically expediant for him at the time, without regard to the country.

Health care reform was agreed to by both sides if you recall. Nobody was against it, so it took no courage to address the problem. As I said it would have been courageous, at least in my mind, to stick with what you promised instead of being "pushed around" (my words) by Pelosi, et all and selling out to lobbyists and other politicians.

I have trouble getting over that because we have wasted so much time now that could have been better invested in the COSTS of health care.

Thanks for saying my "accusations" were polite..normally at this point I am dubbed a racist, radical or someone with hate which is so far from truth but thanks for saying it in that manner. I do not agree however as this health plan alone is so fraught with future ECONOMIC impossibilities as to be scary. It touches all aspects of our lives ECONOMICALLY.

Again, how about the second item I brought up on this Presidents ability to waver always ?

Again, thanks for being civil. I have actually started in one direction on an issue in this forum and been convinced to change, but and this is not meant to be aimed at you...but never changed on blind, non fact based loyalty as seems to be the case with this President.

Then end result looked more like a sellout to Big Pharma and the insurance companies.

As far as the constitutionality goes - there is none. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that says the government can FORCE you to buy something. Oh - they can make rules for a quid-pro-quo - You want to drive that car on the road? You have to insure it. ...but they don't make you buy "walker's insurance".

And why is it that INDIVIDUALS are mandated yet special interests can opt-out? That sound unconstitutional under the "equal protection under the law" clause.

It may have started as a bold initiative, but that didn't survive the first cut.