RunRyder RC
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 1098 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › CNN’s Cafferty Slams Obama for ‘Lie’ on Healthcare Talks
01-18-2010 12:05 AM  8 years agoPost 1
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

CNN’s Cafferty Slams Obama for ‘Lie’ on Healthcare Talks

Is CNN going rogue on President Obama?

Commentator Jack Cafferty — who has been outspoken in his praise of Obama in the past — launched a blistering attack on Obama and the Democrats over the closed-door negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

“How dare they!” he began on a recent edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two healthcare bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal — that’s another word for secret — negotiations meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

“What a far cry from the election, when candidate Obama pledged to ‘broadcast healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the choices are.’

“President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.”

C-SPAN Chief Executive Brian Lamb sent a letter to House and Senate leaders on Jan. 5 asking that the negotiations be televised, saying healthcare reform “will affect the lives of every single American.” The request was rebuffed.

“The Democrats insist this is all on the up and up,” Cafferty continued, “with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying ‘there’s never been a more open process for any legislation.’ Really?

“This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have the ‘most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.’

“Here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.”

The blast was a sharp turnaround for Cafferty, who in March rhapsodized about the “bright” and “terrific” Barack Obama in an interview with Media Bistro.

Asked whether he thought the president could turn things around, Cafferty described himself as "hopeful" and gushed, "I like him a lot. I think he's a bright guy.”

Then in a statement that now appears strikingly ironic, he added: “I like the fact that he's visible and that, you know, he's attempting to bring some transparency and some legitimacy and honesty to the office, which has been missing for a while."

http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKIvYseFAl...RDKFXZkxyzNJU1Z

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2010 12:40 AM  8 years agoPost 2
Dragon2115

rrKey Veteran

New England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Just another case of buyers remorse. There'll be a lot of that going around as people fully realize what they actually elected.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2010 01:49 AM  8 years agoPost 3
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Just shows how badly that people had colon vision when they voted for him in the first place. I talked and talked to Obama supporters before the election and they were so fooled he could have told them that the sky is red and they would have believed it!

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2010 01:52 AM  8 years agoPost 4
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California, Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw..

Campaign song for'12..... "Won't get fooled again!"....

BC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2010 02:05 AM  8 years agoPost 5
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What really isses me off is that he lied his donkey off and still didn't win by that much. It goes to show what would have happened if the Republicans had nominated a real candidate!

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2010 02:50 PM  8 years agoPost 6
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

and the worst part is there still isn't a viable one in sight. Maybe O'Mammy will run un-opposed....

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 01:39 PM  8 years agoPost 7
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Scott Brown for POTUS in 2012.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 01:53 PM  8 years agoPost 8
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

that very well COULD happen if he's not careful. He'll be the darling of the right if he does what he says he's going to do. Plus he really is a moderate (a Rep openly Pro-Choice???), so maybe he can pull some people off the fence. We need a social moderate who's fiscally conservative.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 03:37 PM  8 years agoPost 9
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

that very well COULD happen if he's not careful. He'll be the darling of the right if he does what he says he's going to do. Plus he really is a moderate (a Rep openly Pro-Choice???), so maybe he can pull some people off the fence. We need a social moderate who's fiscally conservative.
Nah, I think we need a Reagan Conservative. The direct opposite of what we have now.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 04:06 PM  8 years agoPost 10
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Fal Heli Boy,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Dennic, your line of thinking is no better than what we have now.

When will you begin to comprehend that the MAJORITY of this country is CENTER?

Far LEFT and far RIGHT don't work.

Reagan was hardly a far right President.

You CAN have conservative ideals and still not be a whacko righty...

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 04:47 PM  8 years agoPost 11
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dennic, your line of thinking is no better than what we have now.

When will you begin to comprehend that the MAJORITY of this country is CENTER?

Far LEFT and far RIGHT don't work.

Reagan was hardly a far right President.

You CAN have conservative ideals and still not be a whacko righty...
America happens to be center right. Look it up.

Correct, far left or right don't work.

Correct, Reagan was not far right. He was simply a true conservative all the way.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 05:25 PM  8 years agoPost 12
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Reagan was not far right. He was simply a true conservative all the way.
I don't think you can stretch it that far. How do you explain the MASSIVE growth of Government under Reagan?

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 06:07 PM  8 years agoPost 13
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't think you can stretch it that far. How do you explain the MASSIVE growth of Government under Reagan?
You mean the massive growth in military that won the cold war?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 06:18 PM  8 years agoPost 14
1stPlace

rrApprentice

Ohio USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How do you explain the MASSIVE growth of Government under Reagan?
Reagan had a Democrat Congress. There has never, not once, been a Democrat majority in congress that balanced the budget, or cut spending.

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 06:41 PM  8 years agoPost 15
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Point me and Pru are trying to make, is that a very conservative candidate that is, say, die-hard Pro-Life, will scare off many center voters. For a candidate to change his views on abortion to capture the far right is just plain stupid. Do you mean that if a Rep candidate was Pro-Choice, that all of a sudden the far right is going to jump ship and vote Dem??? No way, not on one item. However for some reason the far right/evangelists have most Rep candidates doing just that. I just want a candidate that has some conviction, whether I agree or not, and not change his vote or his mind based on the latest polls.
I am already impressed that this guy is Pro-Choice - whether or not I am is regardless. I can just about guarantee, if he was STAUNCHLY pro-life, he probably would've lost this election.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 08:29 PM  8 years agoPost 16
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No, Dennis, I mean his rampant spending. Read this...
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Notice the article date and the fact that you can still contact the author.

Please take note that I am not trying to say that Carter was better than Regan as some of the article would insinuate. I am merely using this article because it contains some interesting facts related to EXACTLY where Regan's spending WAS.
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

by Sheldon L. Richman

On August 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had changed his mind about the pro-union plant-closing bill. He had vetoed it three months earlier, but now let it become law without his signature after intense pressure from presidential nominee George Bush and former Treasury Secretary James Baker, now Bush's campaign chairman. Reagan claimed that only this action would enable him to sign a Congressional trade bill almost unequaled in its anti-consumer protectionism.

Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."

Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.

Let's look at the record:

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Taxes

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

Regulation

For all the administration's talk about deregulation (for example, from the know-nothing commission which George Bush headed), it has done little. Much of what has been done began under Carter, such as abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board and deregulation of oil prices. Carter created the momentum and Reagan halted it. In fact, the economic costs of regulation have grown under Reagan.

Some deregulation has occurred for banks, intercity buses, ocean shipping, and energy. But nothing good has happened in health, safety, and environmental regulations, which cost Americans billions of dollars, ignore property rights, and are based on the spurious notion of "freedom from risk." But the Reagan administration has supported state seat-belt and federal air-bag requirements. This concern for safety, however, was never extended to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, which, by imposing fuel-efficiency standards, promote the production of small cars. The shift to small cars will cause an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 highway deaths over the next ten years.

Bureaucracy

By now it should not be surprising that the size of the bureaucracy has also grown. Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.

Trade

The Reagan administration has been the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's. The portion of imports under restriction has doubled since 1980. Quotas and so-called voluntary restraints have been imposed on a host of products, from computer chips to automobiles. Ominously, Reagan has adopted the bogus fair-trade/free-trade dichotomy, and he was eager to sign the big trade bill, which tilts the trade laws even further toward protectionism.

Results

Reagan's fans argue that he has changed the terms of public-policy debate, that no one today dares propose big spending programs. I contend that the alleged spending-shyness of politicians is not the result of an ideological sea-change, but rather of their constituents' fiscal fright brought about by $250 billion Reagan budget deficits. If the deficit ever shrinks, the demand for spending will resume.

This is the Reagan legacy. He was to be the man who would turn things around. But he didn't even try. As he so dramatically illustrated when he accepted the plant-closing bill, there has been no sea-change in thinking about the role of government.
Regan WAS NOT the conservative you are all making him out to be. Much the same with Obama lovers - Obama is not the mesiah many are making him out to be.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 09:25 PM  8 years agoPost 17
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The President does not spend the money. Congress and the Senate does.

Get real.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 10:00 PM  8 years agoPost 18
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You are wrong.

Congress proposed a law that would spend money.

The President then has the final approval authority...

Therefore, the President has just as much to do with the spending that the federal government does.

Dennis, you can't argue that Regan spent money to increase the size of government and then turn around and argue that the President can't spend money...

That makes you look, well, stupid and I think you are far from it.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 10:20 PM  8 years agoPost 19
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

partisanship is what got us where we are today. I have voted for a local Dem here and there in my life and may continue to do so. I just know that from now on, I'm going to try and be a little more diligent about checking the backgrounds of the people running, though, I will of course naturally lean right. But hey, I didn't even vote in 2008 because I just couldn't pull the lever for McCain and Palin. I've just come to the conclusion in the last 10-15 years that there is a lot of trash on both sides of the aisle that needs to go out with yesterdays garbage.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2010 10:22 PM  8 years agoPost 20
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Therefore, the President has just as much to do with the spending that the federal government does.
He is only the last signature. He has veto powers. If he votes a bill and Congress overrides that veto (that does happen), that means CONGRESS spends the money. Not the President.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 1098 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › CNN’s Cafferty Slams Obama for ‘Lie’ on Healthcare Talks
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 3  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, September 26 - 2:35 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online