|
Post by stayput on Mar 7, 2011 22:21:26 GMT -5
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella Rep. Michele Bachmann tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi should apologize to the American people for the $105 billion appropriation they “deceitfully” hid in the healthcare reform legislation. The Minnesota Republican declares that the “stunning revelation” of the expenditure points to “one of the biggest lies we have ever seen.” Bachmann, founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, also asserts that Obama wants $8-a-gallon gasoline to drive America toward green energy, says Republicans should hire their own lawyer to represent the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and warns that a second Obama term would be “even worse” than a second Jimmy Carter term would have been. www.newsmax.com/Headline/michelle-bachmann-obama-health/2011/03/id/388453?... Read more on Newsmax.com: Bachmann Exclusive: Obama, Reid and Pelosi 'Deceitfully' Hid $105 Billion in Obamacare Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 7, 2011 22:34:33 GMT -5
We are sorry. The content you are looking for has either expired or is unavailable
Read more on Newsmax.com: Newsmax - 404
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 7, 2011 22:45:42 GMT -5
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Bachmann expressed her anger over the $105 billion appropriation that has only now come to light in an updated Congressional Research Service report on the Obamacare legislation.
“What we need to do is defund Obamacare,” she says. “The House has the power of the purse.
“But we’ve just found out startling information, and I am calling on President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to apologize to the American people and explain why in the bill known as Obamacare they put in over $105 billion in appropriations.
“The funny thing is, they forgot to tell the members of the Senate that there was $105 billion in spending in that bill. They forgot to tell members of the House.
“Since when do we pass a transformative piece of legislation like the government takeover of healthcare and just happen to drop in $105 billion in appropriations, the purpose of which will be to implement this massive new bill? No one knew. We have just found out in the last week or so.
“This is a stunning revelation. It’s shocking. We’ve been fighting to cut $100 billion out of the budget and then we find out that the Democrats led by President Obama have already spent $105 billion and didn’t bother to tell Congress.
“This is unbelievable. I don’t think anyone has ever heard of anything like this before. That’s why the president needs to answer to the American people. What an insult to the American people to not tell us this was in the bill. That amount of money could fund the whole state government in Minnesota for over three years.
“And I think the reason President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did this is because they knew this bill would be unpopular and they wanted to make sure that the whole bill could be implemented because they provided the implementation money through 2019.
“So unless we rescind this money, it will be spent.”
Bachmann proposes this course of action to deal with the appropriation: “The government runs out of money on March 18 of 2011. Before we Republicans agree to fund the government one day further, we need to get an agreement from Barack Obama and Harry Reid that they will give back the $105 billion that they deceitfully put into that bill. They need to give that money back and then we need to defund Obamacare after the next election.
“No Republican voted for Obamacare. If I was a Democrat who voted for this bill, I would be furious at Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and Harry Reid. This is one of the biggest lies we have ever seen.
“This is why Speaker Pelosi said we need to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Truer words were never spoken. But this shows why it’s absolutely wrong. They wouldn’t let us read the bill. They put it on our desks and said, vote. Harry Reid did the same thing in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009.
“It’s reprehensible. Republicans have to draw a line in the sand and say we will refuse to give you one red cent to fund this government until you give back the $105 billion that you deceitfully spent and put in the Obamacare bill.”
With gasoline prices skyrocketing, Bachmann was asked her view of President Obama’s handling of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.
“I don’t think the president has handled this well at all,” she responds.
“There is incredible instability in the Middle East. President Obama’s policies have made us more vulnerable than ever due to our dependence on foreign oil. And what is he doing? He’s approved only one [oil drilling] lease — and that one was in the last week — since he’s come into office.
“As soon as he took office his new Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases. And now that oil is trading at over $100 a barrel, it is time that we open up American energy interests. We need to go for shale oil or natural gas. We have 25 percent of the world’s coal. So we need to access our own energy so we can become less dependent on these unstable regions.
“Remember the president’s current energy secretary, Steven Chu, said that we want the United States to have the same price of gasoline as Europe has. When he made that comment, Europe had gas at $8 a gallon. This is exactly what the ambition of the Obama administration is, because they want to move people toward green energy.
“Well, I’m for all energy. Let’s access all energy in the United States. No one is helped by having gasoline at $8 a gallon. I think that’s a very unwise strategy on the part of the Obama administration.”
Bachmann is sharply critical of Obama’s decision not to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“I think what Congress should do is defend the law that it passed,” she tells Newsmax.
“We need to hire a super lawyer and if the president of the United States won’t defend our laws, then the House of Representatives should defend our laws. So we need to hire a lawyer to represent DOMA in court.”
Bachmann opposes raising debt ceiling, noting that the federal government has raised the ceiling 10 times in the last 10 years and equating that with people continually having their credit card maximum raised even though they can’t afford to pay the bills.
“I think we need to put pressure on Congress to actually do some real cutting because we cannot continue to spend this money,” she adds. “We’re absolutely broke, and we can’t just run the printing presses because that will induce inflation.”
Turning to Iran, Bachmann says the Obama administration should have gotten involved in the Green movement back in 2009 “when there was more of a chance for the United States to have a positive involvement.
“Now with the instability we’re seeing across the Middle East region, we see a rise in the influence of Iran in that area,” she observes, warning that the Middle East turmoil could ultimately lead to Islamic fundamentalist regimes.
Bachmann says she has not decided whether or not she will run for president in 2012.
“Right now I’m involved in the narrative of why we cannot have a second term for Barack Obama. Your viewers remember Jimmy Carter and they remember that was not a good time for our country. Imagine if we’d had a second term for Jimmy Carter. A second Barack Obama term would be even worse.
“We need to have a candidate who understands the times that we live in and who has the political courage to make really tough decisions, even if that means they will serve only one term. We are at a turning point in our nation’s history.”
Finally, Bachmann — who has five children and has raised 23 foster children in her home — says she is “very concerned that they have a vital future available for them.
“We are the indispensable nation of the world and it’s important that we maintain not only our economic might, our military might, but also remain a force for good in the world.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Bachmann Exclusive: Obama, Reid and Pelosi 'Deceitfully' Hid $105 Billion in Obamacare
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 7, 2011 23:16:27 GMT -5
Who and what is this media source Newsmax, their political leanings, their agenda? It would help to get a idea of what the articles they put up , how much attention of being factual or just a article of propaganda pushing the medias particular political agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media-------------------------------------------------------- In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party. Political analyst Dick Morris was quoted as saying that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation.[8] In a January 2010 profile on the company, the Financial Times reported that the "Rise of Newsmax Defies the Media Trend" and said its website, Newsmax.com, is "one of the strongest conservative voices online." . According to the magazine, Newsmax has become a must-do stop for Republican candidates seeking the GOP nomination. Visitors have included Sen. John Thune, Gov. Haley Barbour, former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum, among others.[14] . Nielsen Online said Newsmax was the most trafficked conservative website with approximately 4 million unique visitors monthly.[15] In 2009, Forbes magazine says regular readers include Newt Gingrich and John Templeton Jr. [8] In addition to Newsmax.com, the company publishes Newsmax magazine, which the company describes as the nation’s "largest independent monthly with a conservative perspective -------------------------------------------------------------- OK, got where they are coming from. Quite Conservative. That does not mean that the articles they publish are not worthy of reading but as some use to so criticize a native American who was active here posting articles of a media source from the left, the HUFF, to the point of calling for his removal from these boards , not sure if a few actually were waving ropes turned into nooses, and I swear I smelled tar being boiled, with a few feathers floating in the air, the posts are still available to be read . I can go get them, but I won't do that here. Not correct or should even be mentioned. Just so all know , where the articles originate, the agenda of the media source that publishes them and take that into consideration when /if reading. {Actually very long , thought there was suppose to be a few paragraphs unless short and then links, has that changed?}
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 7, 2011 23:28:28 GMT -5
Thanks for all your googling Mr. deziloooooo but are you saying the information in #2 is incorrect?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 7, 2011 23:45:00 GMT -5
Thanks for all your googling Mr. deziloooooo but are you saying the information in #2 is incorrect? Hello Mr burns , i see you are awake, hope you had a nice snooze. I take it your interest of the Palastinians , the politics, where they are coming from in their struggle for a sstae isn't your thing ..no interest. To bad, I think it's a very interesting political story in a important part of the world especially with what is happening in the Middle East. I haven't had a chance to read th article above yet, I was trying to discover the political bias , if they had one, they do, of the publishing media to see if they had a particuler agenda that might lend some light into the veracity of the article, will try to find time to read it. I don't think the poster of it understands our rules for posting articles here that most of us follow, possible you might want to let him know, while I read the article.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 8, 2011 0:25:17 GMT -5
Well in a quick read of Rep Bachmans definitely isn't a fan of the President, didn't see one positive post in the long blurb. She is all over the place , the health bill to Iraq, costs of gasoline, claiming president wants a $8 per gallon as in Europe, actually she is off there , UK, hit 9.69 last week, no clue what it is today, $8- is a bargain. I have no idea what she is talking about in the health bill, $105 million, we all knew there were costs involved, is that what she is talking about? Hope she didn't think it was a free thing, if so then pubs should have voted for it. Then she jumps to "not to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage." She is surprised here too? The consensus in the country, possible not in Minnesota, is that same sex marriage is fine for almost 60 % of the population, definitely for those on the left and there is no getting away with it, the POTUS is from the left, you agree there don't you Burns? So why be surprised at that decision.
Bachmann was asked her view of President Obama’s handling of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.
“I don’t think the president has handled this well at all,” she responds.
Her opinion, freshman Rep, no real advisors, yet she has the answers.? Give me a break. Foreign policy decisions, POTUS responsibility, her job, shut her mouth, if can't support him, especially while it's going down.
Mine he's doing fine so far, even conservatives are giving him good marks here, not all, but most and the important ones, and it's not over yet, Lybia is going to be tricky, but it's in progress.
She's mad about this too, "As soon as he took office his new Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases" wasn't this after the gulf blow up , all that oil spill, remember that...since it takes a bit of finding, drilling to find it, think years most time, they want to make sure the companies have it right this time, or you feel as she does, lets go,go, go..never happen again?
Go ask the folks in the Gulf still recovering. {I know the oil workers don't care they want to drill/work but tough..we/most want it safe as possible and right now, not sure}
"We need to have a candidate who understands the times that we live in and who has the political courage to make really tough decisions"
Agree there and we have one who has been making the tough decisions since the day he took office.
You , like the Rep, don't like the decisions? With all respect Burns, as you came out with the unnecessary vulgar remark to a post of mine, let me reply to you in the same way , a little pay back so to speak, who gives a sxxx what you like, he's the one making the decisions.
Finishing Iraq, plan for Afghanistan, the Gulf Blow out, getting BP to commit to billions for clean up, Health Intuitive, Tarp, Stimulus , Nuclear warhead treat Russia, a little healing in AZ, for most of us, he did wonderfully, those who criticized it, eeegghh to them , Middle east, making decisions , we'll have to see how it plays out but making decisions. I am sure ai left out many decisions made in the 2 plus years in office.
The article above , as said , a lady who probably will not invite the President and his wife over for dinner.
If this is the best the Pubs have, just more Yadda, Yadda...a light weight.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:22:38 GMT -5
Deleted due to content-mod bashing
Tennesseer/Moderator
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Mar 8, 2011 2:43:19 GMT -5
Well in a quick read of Rep Bachmans definitely isn't a fan of the President, didn't see one positive post in the long blurb. . I have no idea what she is talking about in the health bill, $105 million, we all knew there were costs involved, is that what she is talking about? Hope she didn't think it was a free thing, if so then pubs should have voted for it. It's not $105 million; it's $105 BILLION with a "B"!!
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:45:57 GMT -5
The Coming Crash of 2011 By Peter Ferrara on 2.10.10 @ 6:09AM Americans no longer remember the concept of the "business cycle." For centuries, market economies have periodically turned down, and then turned back up. The recovery from such downturns is natural for a market economy. Every morning, at least some of the unemployed get up and look for work. Businessmen wake up and spend the day trying to restore their businesses to prosperity. As a result, market economies naturally come back to recovery. This is why the average recession in the U.S. since World War II has been only 10 months, with the longest, until now, being 16 months. spectator.org/archives/2011/02/10/the-coming-crash-of-2011
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:47:42 GMT -5
Bad economic policies can throw economies into downturns, and delay recoveries. Keynesian economics and rising effective tax rates produced four worsening inflation/recession cycles in and around the 1970s: 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1979-1980, and 1982.
But Reaganomics was so successful that it all but abolished the business cycle for a generation. The economy took off at the end of 1982 on a 25-year economic boom interrupted by only two, short, shallow recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001. That is why today we no longer recognize the natural workings of the business cycle.
The current recession was officially scored by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as starting in December, 2007. It was caused by excessively loose Federal Reserve monetary policy from 2001 to 2006, and the liberal policies creating the subprime mortgage market, resulting in the catastrophic housing bubble.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:48:00 GMT -5
As previously explained in this column, from the beginning the government tried to address the downturn with long ago failed, counterproductive, Keynesian economics, rather than Reagan's shockingly successful supply-side economics. First there was the Bush/Pelosi stimulus bill of February, 2008, since forgotten because it had no positive effects.
A year later, President Obama and Congressional Democrats came back with the almost $1 trillion stimulus bill, promising that it would stop unemployment from climbing above 8%. These bills both involved Keynesian economics because they tried to stimulate the economy through higher government deficits and spending. Even the "tax cuts" in those stimulus bills involved tax credits and rebates that effectively are the same as just more government spending, sending out government checks, rather than the tax rate reductions that were the focus of Reaganomics and supply-side theory, which fundamentally change economic incentives. The slow and weak recovery from the recession, which has lasted almost two years (a postwar record), shows yet again the failure of Keynesian economics, continuing a long, unbroken record of failure stretching back to the 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:48:33 GMT -5
But the Obama Administration came into office knowing that the economy would ultimately recover as the business cycle turned up naturally, and planned to reap the political credit, enabling still greater leaps of neo-socialism. Internally, they are surprised and miffed that it has taken so long, not understanding that their own, blindly anti-market policies only delayed recovery.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:48:50 GMT -5
The Plague of Left-Wing Propaganda
A plague of left-wing propagandists from such pustules as the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress are already feverishly at work attempting to obscure these economic realities. On a recent broadcast of the Larry Kudlow Show on CNBC, Art Laffer politely sat through an infantile lecture from Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy for the Center, claiming that Laffer had been "long discredited" in his argument that cuts in capital gains tax rates produce higher revenues.
But the truth is that over the past 40 years, every time capital gains tax rates have been cut, revenues have increased, and every time capital gains tax rates have been increased, revenues have declined.
In 1968, a 25% capital gains tax rate generated real capital gains tax revenues of $40.6 billion calculated in 2000 dollars. The capital gains tax rate was then raised 4 times in the next 7 years to 35%. By 1975, at the higher rate, capital gains revenues totaled $19.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars, less than half as much.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:49:05 GMT -5
In 1978, the capital gains tax rate of 35% yielded $29.9 billion in 2000 dollars. The rate was then cut 3 times to 20% over the next 4 years. By 1986, the new rate, 43% lower than the 1978 rate, raised $92.9 billion in 2000 dollars, about three times as much.
The capital gains rate was raised by 40% the next year, to 28%. Capital gains revenues fell to $56.2 billion that year, and declined all the way to $34.6 billion by 1991.
In 1997, Congress cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% back down to 20%. Despite this almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999. Revenues over the period 1997 to 2000 increased by 84% over the projections before the tax cut.
Finally, Congress cut the capital gains rate from 20% to 15% in 2003. Capital gains revenues doubled from 2003 to 2005, despite this 25% cut in the rate. Revenues increased by $133 billion during the years 2003 to 2006 as compared to pre-tax cut projections.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:49:40 GMT -5
Other propagandists have compared the unemployment rate in President Reagan's second year in office to the rate under President Obama today. But they fail to account for the fact that Reagan slashed roaring inflation in half by 1982, and in half again by 1983. Prices had soared by 25% over the two years 1979 and 1980. But annual inflation fell to 6% by 1982, and to 3% by 1983. Find me the economics textbook that explains how that can be done without a temporary increase in unemployment. President Obama, by contrast, is today sowing the seeds for inflation, rather than conquering it.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:50:16 GMT -5
Economic Growth in 2010
Just as President Obama's economic policies are the opposite of President Reagan's, his economic performance will be the opposite as well, as Art Laffer argues in his latest economic outlook report.
Economic growth will return throughout 2010, due to the natural economic recovery as discussed above, which this column predicted a year ago. President Obama often talks as if without his magic Keynesian fairy dust, the economy would continue to lose several hundred thousand jobs every month, until the total number of jobs fell to zero. Thinking people know nothing like that would ever happen. The reality is that the recovery has come too little, too late, as also discussed above.
For several reasons, this will be the best year economically of President Obama's reign. First, the deeper the downturn, the stronger the recovery, and this recession has been the worst since World War II. Given that, real economic growth this year could be expected to be 6% to 8%. The economy grew by almost 7% in Reagan's recovery in 1983 and 1984. But because of the counterproductive economic policies of President Obama and his neo-socialist Democrats, growth will only be half that. Moreover, as Laffer notes in his report, "this slingshot effect will long be a thing of the past by 2011."
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:51:16 GMT -5
Secondly, Federal Reserve policy has been enormously expansive, with the monetary base soaring by 150% over the past year. Interest rates have also been kept close to zero during this entire time. Basic textbook economics will tell you that this boosts the economy in the short term.
Thirdly, the broad tax rate increases scheduled for 2011 will cause producers to produce more in 2010 while they can still gain the relief of the lower rates. As Laffer writes, "Higher tax rates on January 1, 2011 will incentivize people to accelerate income out of 2011 and into 2010." As a result, "GDP growth in 2010 will be some 3% to 4% higher than it should otherwise be."
But I don't think unemployment will fall this year all the way to 7%, as Laffer suggests. I don't think it will fall below 9%.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:51:34 GMT -5
Down the Roller Coaster in 2011
But, Laffer rightly continues, "when the U.S. economy comes to 2011, the train's going to come off the tracks."
Not only will the slingshot effect of recovery from the deep recession be over. The positive effect of the enormous Fed monetary expansion will be petering out. Monetary expansion does not create long-term economic growth. The Fed has to press the accelerator faster and faster to maintain the same stimulative effect. But if it does, then inflation starts to arise, accelerating faster and faster if the Fed continues. Indeed, the runaway expansion of the monetary base the Fed has already engineered will generate explosive inflation if the Fed does not pull it out in time.
But if the Fed pulls back, interest rates will start to rise sharply. The borrowing needs of Obama's record-shattering deficits will exacerbate this effect, as will the borrowing needs of a newly growing economy. Those higher interest rates will squelch the recovery. Or as Laffer says, "Any attempt to rein in excessive monetary expansion would lead to an immediate and precipitous economic collapse."
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:51:58 GMT -5
And we haven't even begun to talk about the tax rate increases of 2011. These purely ideological abuses of economic policy will end up punishing working people nationwide. The top income tax rate is scheduled to increase by close to 20%, the capital gains tax rate by at least 33%, and the top dividends tax rate by 164%. Further tax increases in the pending health care legislation would raise these tax rates still more. Laffer adds that starting at the end of 2010,
the U.S. will have a payroll tax rate increase, an estate tax increase, and income tax increases. There's also a tax increase coming in 2010 on carried interest [further discouraging investment]. This rate will rise from its current level of 15% to 35%, and then it will rise again in 2011. On state and local levels, there is also no government spending restraint and state tax rates are rising.
Also pending is an $800 billion cap and trade tax on energy, and high cost, unreliable energy is another prescription for economic failure.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:53:48 GMT -5
"The rich" don't even have to pay these higher taxes for the higher rates to have a devastating effect on working people. Working people will suffer if investors just respond to the resulting incentives by pulling back their money, or sending it overseas for investment in friendlier economic climates, like India, Brazil, and China. That will result in fewer jobs, lower wages, higher unemployment, and slower economic growth or even decline in America.
Laffer explains just how devastating the resulting reversal from the artificially pumped up economy of 2010 can be, saying,
The tax boundary that will occur on January 1, 2011 tells me that GDP growth in 2010 will be some 6% to 8% higher than GDP growth in 2011. A year on year decline from trend of some 6% to 8% in GDP growth would represent a larger collapse than occurred in 2008 and early 2009.
|
|
|
Post by stayput on Mar 8, 2011 2:54:07 GMT -5
Again, just the opposite of the long-term economic boom that followed the 1982 downturn when Reagan first slayed inflation, the flowering of growth in Obama's second year will be followed by long-term stagnation and economic decline for America, slaying the American Dream, until President Obama's neo-socialist economic policies are reversed.
The only hope for change the American people have now is to engineer a dramatic change in leadership in Washington in this year's elections. Only that can restore the prosperity policies necessary to avert the Coming Crash of 2011.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 8, 2011 8:19:42 GMT -5
Here's another so called (Stay Put original) "effthis, if your pantry is full of food, and your weapons/ammo are just as full, it is far easier to defend an entrenched position, especially against starving people (armed). Your food will keep you strong both physically/mentally against a half crazed, starving person (even one that is armed) and places your percentage of survival very high.
Most of those unprepared will find themselves inside FEMA camps, being a threat to no one, or standing in the government soup lines getting their days ration of food, and be too busy surviving on govt hand outs, to be a real threat to those of us who are prepared. The stray threat that "may" come, according to your scenario, will be dropped at 500 yards away, and the suppose threat will be over." Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politicaleconomic&action=display&thread=3478&page=1#ixzz1G0ussWHjBut this one is for the ages: "Concrete cowboys, in any mental state, trying to go up against a group of fully trained ex-Marines, soldiers, and avid hunters, which my group encompasses, will not only hold them off but will see a serious decrease in the Texas census. "Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politicaleconomic&action=display&thread=3478&page=1#ixzz1G1KfYgnO
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 8, 2011 11:57:49 GMT -5
Stay Put - you can't post 13 unrelated posts in a row & expect everyone to read them all. Especially when it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the 105 billion that you started this thread about. What I don't understand - I can't find anything where she said what this 105 billion was going to be spent on. Also, it was either in the bill or it wasn't. They can't hide it somewhere where no one will read it. Now maybe people reading it didn't understand it, but I'm sure the CBO has this included in their analysis of the bill.
Bottom line - she is railing against something without really explaining what the spending was for & ultimately the spending couldn't have been hidden because it had to be written in the bill that all of congress (and the american people) had an opportunity to read. If anything I think her rants only speak to her own ignorance since she has been talking about this bill for over a year now & just figured some of it out.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Mar 8, 2011 12:05:16 GMT -5
Stay Put - you can't post 13 unrelated posts in a row & expect everyone to read them all. Especially when it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the 105 billion that you started this thread about. What I don't understand - I can't find anything where she said what this 105 billion was going to be spent on. Also, it was either in the bill or it wasn't. They can't hide it somewhere where no one will read it. Now maybe people reading it didn't understand it, but I'm sure the CBO has this included in their analysis of the bill. Bottom line - she is railing against something without really explaining what the spending was for & ultimately the spending couldn't have been hidden because it had to be written in the bill that all of congress (and the american people) had an opportunity to read. If anything I think her rants only speak to her own ignorance since she has been talking about this bill for over a year now & just figured some of it out. www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/06/michele-bachmann-obama-ne_n_831986.htmlDuring the appearance, Bachmann reiterated a statement she made last week claiming to have exposed $105 billion in advanced appropriations contained in the health care reform package signed into law last last year. "We discovered that secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation to fund the implementation of Obamacare," she said. "This is something that wasn't known. This money was broken up, hidden in various parts of the bill." The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on what Bachmann had to say last week and one potential glitch in her argument: Such "advance appropriations," Bachmann said, make it difficult for current and future Congresses to defund the bill, the GOP's fallback position in light of the long odds against repeal. Story continues below Democrats argue that the main provisions of the multi-year health care bill, which passed a year ago in March after more than a year of debate, are not exactly secret. Roll Call relays background on the origin of the figure cited by the congresswoman: The number stems from an October Congressional Research Service report that cites $5 billion in mandatory spending under health care reform this year and an additional $100 billion over the next eight years, minus any appropriating actions by Congress. In an interview with Newsmax published online on Saturday, Bachmann called on the president "to apologize to the American people" over the issue. She also requested apologies from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "This is a stunning revelation," she said. "It's shocking. ... This is unbelievable. I don't think anyone has ever heard of anything like this before. That's why the president needs to answer to the American people."
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Mar 8, 2011 12:06:18 GMT -5
I think she might be confused...
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Mar 8, 2011 12:39:58 GMT -5
one for you Stay Put
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 8, 2011 13:01:52 GMT -5
some use to so criticize a native American Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=4443#ixzz1FzPxM5fFdez, I proved that NONE of you Liberals got it back then, and it is clear that you and others still don't. So allow me to let you in on what most Conservatives on this board clearly knew what I was doing at the time you make reference to. Just prior to posting on Lakhota's thread, I had clearly stated my position on the Freedom of Speech, over on a thread started by traelin0. To make an example of my point, I went over on Lakhota's thread and made my posts. As a result, I was banned for a week by one of the biggest pablum puking Liberals (Tenn), who wasn't even smart enough (even after making it clear to all) to take into account that the statements were made by a person with actual Native American bloodline...me. He then further went on to prove his ignorance and hypocrisy by referring to Native Americans as "Indians". The problem with every liberal that I have ever met, is that you are all quick to jump on the newest band wagons, but seldom do any real research for yourselves. I have an expression for you people. "Stuck on stupid and can't change gears". (Stay Put original) Stay put, I am missing what you are posting about. You are mentioning a ban , a post on Lakhotas thread, he has been gone, {I wish he would come back, even with his Huff posts actually}for a long time. If your referring to my post regarding the source of where you got he article, I think it's important to know where a media source lies if they have a agenda, and in this they do, nothing wrong , but now all know from where they come and as they read the articles posted there they can make their own judgment as to the facts presented. As far as my comments on the Representative who 's remarks were presented , that was in answer to Mr. Burns question.{I did do a little tweaking on the "adjective " I posted, I just couldn't help it, a bit of payback, but also realize it's not needed, possible he might feel the same the next time he is tempted. Some times temptation should be over ridden by common sense, it took me 24 hours to realize that} Just as a point of interest, is the term "Indian" considered a slur on our Native Americans, I didn't know that , and is "Native American " the only accepted politically correct term to those folks. If so I will try to remember that in the future if I ever have to refer to "Native Americans" again, I am sure at times I might, I like to be politically correct, it's good manners , and with out manners, and respect for all, what do we have but chaos and unnecessary hurt feelings which does little for interaction between folks and friendliness. I am sure you agree here, hope so anyway.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 8, 2011 13:09:28 GMT -5
(and the american people) had an opportunity to read
Was that the famous proclamation from the criminals that it would all be put on the web for everyone to see well in advance of any signing of the bill? Did it ever make it before the bill was signed... if so for how long was it there, a couple of days maybe? What a farce.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 8, 2011 13:10:04 GMT -5
You gotta hand it to the Democrats. This was a positively, undeniably BRILLIANT move. However, it does offer a peek into where their heads were at on this at the time they passed it: they knew it was unpopular, they knew they were going to lose the election, they knew Republicans probably wouldn't have the votes in the Senate to repeal it, and they knew the Republicans likely next move would be to defund it. So, they locked in a hundred billion in the bill. Smart move. Shady, sneaky, but brilliant. I wish we had half this kind of creative energy on the Republican side of the aisle.
|
|