Forbes Magazine: Obama best economic president of modern times

For what it is worth:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

 

He said GOOD DAY!

 

I didn't say that I'd be a fan of the next president, I said that hopefully we'll get a good one after 16 years of poor presidents. Also, I said that it'll be nice to get a president that won't be deified by their party.

Also, I'm the one not living in reality? I'm pretty sure someone just tried to sell me on Obamacare being a Republican idea.....

However, it is pretty funny having someone call me a "partisan" given that I'm not a fan of either major party. It just means I'm doing it right if blind partisans from both sides think I'm a partisan of the other side at different times depending on the issue.

 

Of course it will. You just don't have the ability to accept that significant portions of the ACA, most notably the individual mandate, were taken directly out of the Heritage Foundation's 1993 proposal and Romneycare.

Too bad you don't have the ability to assess facts. This fully explains your takes, but you desperately need to go into this further. Good day.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

 

I have read enough of your drivel to know exactly which party you stand for. Stop with the BS.

 

It is truly HILARIOUS that you would imply I am a blind partisan given the I vote Libertarian.

What a maroon.

BTW, read the above, Rimbaud posted it in its entirety. The ACA has a great many components that a Republican bill with 20 Republican cosponsors (along with two Democrats) proposed to combat Hillarycare.

 

If you double check that, that response wasn't to you. I know your shtick, you're an intellectually dishonest hack which is fine. Rock on with it, but I'm not going to feed you.

 

You don't have the ability to feed me. All your sustenance appears to come from people who are lying to you and you don't even seem to know it.

I'm the most intellectually honest person you have ever encountered. It probably isn't even close.

 

LOL, whatever you have to tell yourself kid.

 

ROFL, not a kid so stop it. I'm sorry that you are so insecure that you feel the need to belittle others, but perhaps you should stop long enough to realize that the psychological phenomenon called "projection" fits you (and your GOP brethren) to a tee.

You accuse Obama of refusing to compromise when it is quite obviously the Republicans who have done the refusing.

You accuse others of being "intellectually dishonest" when you're the one who seems to refuse to consider factual information presented to you in black and white.

In a more general sense, this is something I see out of WAY too many Republicans these days. They accuse Democrats of doing things that they are engaging in, regardless of the truth or accuracy of such accusations.

Get help, you desperately need it.

 

Back to the top of the circle: If the ACA shares significant similarities with a republican bill drafted in '93 (as linked by rimbaud), how can it be a non-starter? There should be plenty of common ground.

 

This is Bobby sticking his fingers in his ears and going lalalalalalalalalalala when confronted with the facts that prove one his deeply held beliefs is complete horse****.

You notice that he has this extreme reaction to an idea (the ACA was modeled on Republican healthcare reform plans from the '90s and Romneycare) that isn't even in dispute by anyone, but the most rabid wingnuts.

 

Are you joking or just not paying attention? Obama has bent over backwards trying to get the Republicans in a conversation.

When the healthcare debate stalled in 2010 Obama formally invited the GOP to basically a brainstorming session.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is ask them to put their ideas on the table....I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

That's the quote but I can't link on my phone.

The result of that summit? Nothing because the GOP has no ideas. Eventually Obama dropped the single payer option to appease the right but still received no ideas or help on what has been proven to be a successful piece of legislation.

The point is the republicans have offered nothing in the last 8 years but obstruction despite Obama trying to reach across the aisle. Anyone paying attention has seen this unfold.

 

A bill that was bashed by Republicans then to the point where it never even came up for a vote....Want to know why? It was a non-starter. Even a Republican created alternative to Hillary-care was unacceptable. Suggesting that just because some Republicans once put together a proposal that was rejected means that the idea is somehow a "Republican idea" is nonsense. If it was acceptable, it would have been at least voted on in 93. It wasn't.

Of course I don't really have to say this because deep down you know it's nonsense, you're just being intentionally daft in an attempt to score a political point. If I found an old, rejected proposal by a Democrat for the banning of abortion, would that then mean banning abortion was a Democrat idea?

Basically what happened is that no one could come up with any legitimate examples of Obama "bending over backwards" to work with the Republicans or pushing Republican ideas that were blocked, so they just pretended that Obama's ideas were somehow secret Republican ideas.

When you push for non-starter ideas, it doesn't matter what you try to tack on to it, you aren't going to get traction and that's pretty much what this administration has been up to.

If the next administration happened to be a Republican, and they were pushing for a ban on abortion, how far would that get? Probably not far because it would be a non-starter issue. Would you then blame the congress for being obstructionist?

 

ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...

 

You mean OTHER than the 7 hour long streamed healthcare summit in which the only thing the GOP representatives kept saying was "clean sheet of paper," right?

Good God you're obtuse. I think it's intentional, but have doubt.

 

If Republicans set up a lengthy summit to discuss banning abortion, implementing a voter ID law, and the immediate end of welfare would you call that "bending over backwards" to work with them? Would you blame Democrats for not going along with those ideas?

 

Yeah, because the ACA has proven to be equivalent to the idiotic things you mention.



But I'm the one who is "intellectually dishonest." ROFL

The point, of course, is that you keep claiming that Obama didn't even include the GOP in the conversation, which is simply not true. The Democrats had the votes to pass healthcare reform, they based the plan on other Republican proposals from the past, then specifically solicited suggestions from the opposition. I would call that "bending over backwards" to include the GOP when, in reality, they really didn't have to.

I know, it is easier to just swallow what the Fox pundits feed you than to actually think for yourself, but thinking is SOOOOOOO much better for you and for the country.

 

Uhhh Bobby, Obamacare shares a number of key components with Romneycare (exchanges, individual/business mandates, subsidies). When a Republican governor passes signature healthcare reform in his state and then goes on to be the Republican presidential nominee, only the most delusional would deny that his ideas for reforming healthcare could be characterized as "Republican". That is some grade A wingnuttery right there.

 

"The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors."

Banning abortion isn't a non-starter, there's plenty of room for negotiation with respect to what's best for the American public.