President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Obama Denies Vermont Healthcare and his position seems to represent the bi-partisan opinion too!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district
Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received [COLOR=green ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Obamacare[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] waivers.
Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.
[/COLOR]
Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received [COLOR=green ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Obamacare[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] waivers.
Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.
[/COLOR]
moreluck
golden ticket member
AND, because she and all of congress are so special, they all get a pass too........if Obamacare is such a great thing, why don't the congress people get it too ??
moreluck
golden ticket member
Just rec'd this......
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned
forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings,
President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was
proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one
trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers
nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then
embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in
US history?
Well, it's all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said
in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide
the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare
claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama
White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping of The Wall Street
Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the
healthcare system by $900 billion... I said we would do it for free to
prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration
took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama
Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by
FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by
his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief
of US News & World Report, said:
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of
both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more
comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is
certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very
carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that
proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And
it's really puzzling... These are very, very responsible people and
don't have a political ax to grind.
In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures,
presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves
two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and
anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to
tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
This is worse than shameful in today's economic environment, and with
all the pressure to adopt an incredibly expensive, inefficient Health Care Bill.
For more information check these links:
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/574
http://reimagineamerica.org/tag/sam-palmisano/
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government...ment-Investment-Could-Lead-to-900000-IT-Jobs/
(Nothing in Snopes or TruthOrFiction -- so highly probably that this story is true!)
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned
forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings,
President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was
proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one
trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers
nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then
embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in
US history?
Well, it's all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said
in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide
the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare
claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama
White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping of The Wall Street
Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the
healthcare system by $900 billion... I said we would do it for free to
prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration
took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama
Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by
FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by
his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief
of US News & World Report, said:
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of
both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more
comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is
certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very
carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that
proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And
it's really puzzling... These are very, very responsible people and
don't have a political ax to grind.
In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures,
presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves
two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and
anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to
tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
This is worse than shameful in today's economic environment, and with
all the pressure to adopt an incredibly expensive, inefficient Health Care Bill.
For more information check these links:
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/574
http://reimagineamerica.org/tag/sam-palmisano/
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government...ment-Investment-Could-Lead-to-900000-IT-Jobs/
(Nothing in Snopes or TruthOrFiction -- so highly probably that this story is true!)
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanation here today
Why not just give all University seats to foreigners......??
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/dhs-allows-foreign-students-extended-stay/
Why not just give all University seats to foreigners......??
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/dhs-allows-foreign-students-extended-stay/
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Re: Obamanation here today
Obama began his political career as President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, working along side his mentor domestic terrorist and educational “expert” Bill Ayers. Obama was responsible for a $387 million fund that was meant to improve the education of low income African American children. Instead of using the money to teach kids the core academic subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, Obama and Ayers wasted it all on external community organizing groups who taught teachers “resistance to American racism and oppression” and promoted “radical political commitment” among the students. Not surprisingly an official review found “no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.” The only tangible achievement of the program was to raise an additional $600 million from private donors which has no doubt already been thrown away on other equally useless liberal nonsense.
Before joining the White House, presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett was the owner of Grove Parc Plaza, a publicly financed housing development in President Obama’s home district in Chicago. She was paid millions by the state to provide housing for low income residents, however, after only a few years of use, federal inspectors determined the complex was in such poor condition that “the buildings now face demolition.”
Obama began his political career as President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, working along side his mentor domestic terrorist and educational “expert” Bill Ayers. Obama was responsible for a $387 million fund that was meant to improve the education of low income African American children. Instead of using the money to teach kids the core academic subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, Obama and Ayers wasted it all on external community organizing groups who taught teachers “resistance to American racism and oppression” and promoted “radical political commitment” among the students. Not surprisingly an official review found “no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.” The only tangible achievement of the program was to raise an additional $600 million from private donors which has no doubt already been thrown away on other equally useless liberal nonsense.
Before joining the White House, presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett was the owner of Grove Parc Plaza, a publicly financed housing development in President Obama’s home district in Chicago. She was paid millions by the state to provide housing for low income residents, however, after only a few years of use, federal inspectors determined the complex was in such poor condition that “the buildings now face demolition.”
moreluck
golden ticket member
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanation here today
The White House Guest..........
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2011/05/19/the_common_defense/page/full/
The White House Guest..........
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2011/05/19/the_common_defense/page/full/
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Re: Obamanation here today
Fox Nation:
Fox Nation:
Wednesday, May 18, at a DNC event in Boston President Obama took to the podium to tout his accomplishments to the local political scene. Along with illegal immigration and the economy, the President also took time to joke about piracy…
“Along the way, we dealt with H1N1 and an oil spill and pirates. (Laughter.) Do you remember pirates? (Laughter.) Golly. (Laughter.) Thomas Jefferson had to deal with pirates. I thought we were past that. ” (Laughter.)
Apparently the President “dealt” with pirates in a very unique way. In February four Americans were captured and killed by fifteen Somali pirates, and on Monday, May 16th eight of them were offered plea deals.
“Along the way, we dealt with H1N1 and an oil spill and pirates. (Laughter.) Do you remember pirates? (Laughter.) Golly. (Laughter.) Thomas Jefferson had to deal with pirates. I thought we were past that. ” (Laughter.)
Apparently the President “dealt” with pirates in a very unique way. In February four Americans were captured and killed by fifteen Somali pirates, and on Monday, May 16th eight of them were offered plea deals.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanation here today
BETTER NOT LIVE IN TEXAS IF YOU WANT ANY SHARE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS.
Editorial from Investors' Business Dailey:
Messing With Texas, Chicago Way
Posted 04/27/2011 06:54 PM ET
Wildfires flare near Possum Kingdom, Texas, on April 19. The feds still have not declared the state a disaster area.
Politics: Asked last week why he's so unpopular in Texas, the only thing our president could say was "Republicans." Now that Texas has been lashed by tornadoes, his curious refusal to aid the state suggests the depth of his dislike.
Two weeks ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pleaded with the president in a 16-page letter to declare a large number of Texas counties disaster areas after historic wildfires ravaged over a million acres across the state, burning 350 homes and killing three.
A bad combination of hurricane rains, freezing weather and subsequent drought have made ideal conditions for the inferno during this tornado season.
Perry's request was a routine effort to free up federal disaster funds so the state wouldn't have to fight the fires alone. Texas should have been granted it easily.
But to date, nobody's gotten back to him - though other states with natural disasters, such as Oklahoma next door, got the declarations they needed. North Carolina got its declaration a mere four days after it made its request. So far, the White House seems to be saying Texas can burn.
This is no isolated incident. In the aftermath of the September 2010 killing of a U.S. citizen by Mexico's Zeta cartel in Texas waters, Perry pleaded in another letter to the president to send 1,000 extra National Guard troops to the border, warning of a "dire threat amassing on our southern border."
The response he got was little more than pablum from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano assuring that all was well on the border.
Since then, mass graves have been found on the Mexican side of the border, and they aren't done digging.
This Monday, Perry announced that Texas would finally get its $830 million in promised federal funding for education from the Department of Education after a nine-month delay. Texas alone of all 50 states had been denied its share of the funds as a result of an amendment from an Obama ally, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin, who wrote a special provision into the 2010 federal education jobs bill to require Texas alone to "supplement and not supplant" state education financing through 2013. Perry called it unconstitutional, and it was reversed in the 2011 budget.
If this isn't a pattern, what is? In Texas, it's been one thing after another since the president told WFAA-TV in Dallas last week that he's unpopular in the state because it's full of conservatives.
What's more, he suggested they weren't sufficiently grateful to him. "Gov. Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help - which he happily took - and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama told a TV interviewer.
Seems the president considers federal funding "his" money - rather than a round trip of cash from the states - deserving of gratitude, and any state that thinks otherwise gets payback, the Chicago Way.
Arizona, Wisconsin and Louisiana have felt similar stings for defying Washington.
This kind of ward-heeling behavior may seem logical to Obama, but it's quite beneath the office of a president who is presumed to govern all the country.
Texas, and the rest of the U.S. for that matter, desperately needs a leader, not a partisan politician whose only fealty is to his political cronies.
Thanks, and don't forget that B.O. also gutted the manned space program, and then would not let NASA have one of the 4 shuttles, placing 3 on the east coast and one in California. He also refused to let UAL and Continental merge unless their HQ was in Chicago and not Houston, and he has shut down offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for a year. He clearly hates Texas.
He apparently hates MASS. now too since he didn't get as much face coverage as Romney on the Boston newspaper.
BETTER NOT LIVE IN TEXAS IF YOU WANT ANY SHARE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS.
Editorial from Investors' Business Dailey:
Messing With Texas, Chicago Way
Posted 04/27/2011 06:54 PM ET
Wildfires flare near Possum Kingdom, Texas, on April 19. The feds still have not declared the state a disaster area.
Politics: Asked last week why he's so unpopular in Texas, the only thing our president could say was "Republicans." Now that Texas has been lashed by tornadoes, his curious refusal to aid the state suggests the depth of his dislike.
Two weeks ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pleaded with the president in a 16-page letter to declare a large number of Texas counties disaster areas after historic wildfires ravaged over a million acres across the state, burning 350 homes and killing three.
A bad combination of hurricane rains, freezing weather and subsequent drought have made ideal conditions for the inferno during this tornado season.
Perry's request was a routine effort to free up federal disaster funds so the state wouldn't have to fight the fires alone. Texas should have been granted it easily.
But to date, nobody's gotten back to him - though other states with natural disasters, such as Oklahoma next door, got the declarations they needed. North Carolina got its declaration a mere four days after it made its request. So far, the White House seems to be saying Texas can burn.
This is no isolated incident. In the aftermath of the September 2010 killing of a U.S. citizen by Mexico's Zeta cartel in Texas waters, Perry pleaded in another letter to the president to send 1,000 extra National Guard troops to the border, warning of a "dire threat amassing on our southern border."
The response he got was little more than pablum from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano assuring that all was well on the border.
Since then, mass graves have been found on the Mexican side of the border, and they aren't done digging.
This Monday, Perry announced that Texas would finally get its $830 million in promised federal funding for education from the Department of Education after a nine-month delay. Texas alone of all 50 states had been denied its share of the funds as a result of an amendment from an Obama ally, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin, who wrote a special provision into the 2010 federal education jobs bill to require Texas alone to "supplement and not supplant" state education financing through 2013. Perry called it unconstitutional, and it was reversed in the 2011 budget.
If this isn't a pattern, what is? In Texas, it's been one thing after another since the president told WFAA-TV in Dallas last week that he's unpopular in the state because it's full of conservatives.
What's more, he suggested they weren't sufficiently grateful to him. "Gov. Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help - which he happily took - and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama told a TV interviewer.
Seems the president considers federal funding "his" money - rather than a round trip of cash from the states - deserving of gratitude, and any state that thinks otherwise gets payback, the Chicago Way.
Arizona, Wisconsin and Louisiana have felt similar stings for defying Washington.
This kind of ward-heeling behavior may seem logical to Obama, but it's quite beneath the office of a president who is presumed to govern all the country.
Texas, and the rest of the U.S. for that matter, desperately needs a leader, not a partisan politician whose only fealty is to his political cronies.
Thanks, and don't forget that B.O. also gutted the manned space program, and then would not let NASA have one of the 4 shuttles, placing 3 on the east coast and one in California. He also refused to let UAL and Continental merge unless their HQ was in Chicago and not Houston, and he has shut down offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for a year. He clearly hates Texas.
He apparently hates MASS. now too since he didn't get as much face coverage as Romney on the Boston newspaper.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Re: Obamanation here today
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama may be on the brink of breaking the law.
At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.
The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which makes Friday the 60-day deadline.
the Washington Post op-ed:
"If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate war making."
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama may be on the brink of breaking the law.
At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.
The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which makes Friday the 60-day deadline.
the Washington Post op-ed:
"If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate war making."
moreluck
golden ticket member
Re: Obamanomics
"The national dialogue, at least the one being choreographed by Democrats and their amen chorus in the liberal Beltway media, has been distorted beyond measure. We are asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers.
Let's focus on the real problem. We are in a national debt crisis -- present tense; this is not something that might occur in the future.
Medicare and Social Security trustees just issued the grim report that Medicare's fiscal hole has deepened by an additional $2 trillion and its projected date of insolvency has been moved up five more years to 2024. Social Security was already $49 billion in the red last year, and its projected insolvency date has been advanced to 2036.
Meanwhile, S&P lowered America's long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," and CNN Money warned that this means there's a one in three chance that S&P will downgrade our AAA credit rating within two years. Also, Pimco, the world's largest bond fund with $1.2 trillion in assets, has already sold off all of its U.S. government holdings.
So, the media shouldn't be asking the Republicans whether they intend to play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling, suggesting that if they refuse to raise the limit again they'll cause the United States to default on its obligations and plunge into a financial catastrophe.
Instead, they should be cornering their most favored president and his Democrats and asking them why they are AWOL on our debt crisis. They should demand an answer on why they didn't produce a budget in 2010 despite having control of both houses of Congress, an egregious act of neglect that hasn't occurred in a couple of generations.
Obama and the Democrats should be asked why they continue to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are going to force a default on our national obligations if they don't agree to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats know the government won't default on its obligations because the interest on the debt represents but a small fraction of the budget. It is other expenditures that will have to be delayed -- something that's unthinkable to these rapacious spenders.
Entire article....
http://townhall.com/columnists/davi...s,_need_to_answer_for_debt_ceiling/page/full/
"The national dialogue, at least the one being choreographed by Democrats and their amen chorus in the liberal Beltway media, has been distorted beyond measure. We are asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers.
Let's focus on the real problem. We are in a national debt crisis -- present tense; this is not something that might occur in the future.
Medicare and Social Security trustees just issued the grim report that Medicare's fiscal hole has deepened by an additional $2 trillion and its projected date of insolvency has been moved up five more years to 2024. Social Security was already $49 billion in the red last year, and its projected insolvency date has been advanced to 2036.
Meanwhile, S&P lowered America's long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," and CNN Money warned that this means there's a one in three chance that S&P will downgrade our AAA credit rating within two years. Also, Pimco, the world's largest bond fund with $1.2 trillion in assets, has already sold off all of its U.S. government holdings.
So, the media shouldn't be asking the Republicans whether they intend to play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling, suggesting that if they refuse to raise the limit again they'll cause the United States to default on its obligations and plunge into a financial catastrophe.
Instead, they should be cornering their most favored president and his Democrats and asking them why they are AWOL on our debt crisis. They should demand an answer on why they didn't produce a budget in 2010 despite having control of both houses of Congress, an egregious act of neglect that hasn't occurred in a couple of generations.
Obama and the Democrats should be asked why they continue to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are going to force a default on our national obligations if they don't agree to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats know the government won't default on its obligations because the interest on the debt represents but a small fraction of the budget. It is other expenditures that will have to be delayed -- something that's unthinkable to these rapacious spenders.
Entire article....
http://townhall.com/columnists/davi...s,_need_to_answer_for_debt_ceiling/page/full/
klein
Für Meno :)
Re: Obamanomics
Well, Moreluck, thank mostly Bush for that.
He's the 1 that handed out tax cuts, implemented Medicare part B (with no funding).
Now, all that needs to be reversed, just to get somewhat back in track, plus more cuts, and maybe even more tax hikes.
Bush handed out money that just wasn't there.
Now the republicans want a 2 Trillion budget cut in August. That's more then the entire cost of medicare.
So, I guess get rid of it a.s.a.p, plus cut SS for the wealthy, and raise taxes.
Time to pay up !
Well, Moreluck, thank mostly Bush for that.
He's the 1 that handed out tax cuts, implemented Medicare part B (with no funding).
Now, all that needs to be reversed, just to get somewhat back in track, plus more cuts, and maybe even more tax hikes.
Bush handed out money that just wasn't there.
Now the republicans want a 2 Trillion budget cut in August. That's more then the entire cost of medicare.
So, I guess get rid of it a.s.a.p, plus cut SS for the wealthy, and raise taxes.
Time to pay up !
Similar threads
