Interesting factoid: The first six presidents - George Washington through John Quincy Adams - only used the veto on bills they felt were unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson was the first president to veto bills solely because he didn't like them.

Except that the Presidents plan to limit payments to insurers isn't going to bring the cost of health care down at all. It just means that the patient will get a separate bill for the extra cost, and raising taxes on the medical industry only means those costs will increase significantly as they are passed on to the consumer.

Either way the cost to seniors goes up significantly under Obamacare.

Mookie - I much prefer to actually read the source of the controversy instead of the interpretation of others.

Try reading the actual CBO document about what would happen if Obamacare was repealed:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...471-hr6079.pdf

I will quote the relevant section that exists on page 13:

"Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billionover that 2013-2022 period."

If there was no Obamacare - this money would be spent on our Seniors. Because of Obamacare - it will not. That makes Obamacare the reason this money will not be there for the elderly. Who will absorb that cost then? Simple - the Seniors who rely on Medicare....

Don't believe its a cut to Medicare? The President says it is - and says he would veto any attempt to put that money back into Medicare. He admitted that he is more concerned making Obamacare "budget neutral" (which it is not) over keeping the funds in Medicare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=t5Ha7RNpn24

So mookie - and others who want to take a third party twist and spin, go ahead. The guy who did this is asked about the cut - and he answers it regarding the cut. So its a cut to Medicare. The CBO documentation - outside of partisan spin - clearly says that Obamacare means less money for Medicare. Spin all you want - your going to find out in November that people are paying more attention to fact than to spin.

On a side note - we have had another 374k people filing for unemployment this last week. 372k the week prior. We are averaging well over 1.2 Million jobs lost EVERY MONTH - and we are creating less than 200k jobs a month. That isn't anywhere near breaking even.

What are we going to get out of Charlotte? Sandra Fluke talking about how evil it is that team R won't pay for her birth control? The left wants government "out of the bedroom" (which I agree with) - but it wants the government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom. There is no talking about the horrible economy, there is no concern about the national debt, there is only an embrace of abortion on demand (to the point of partial birth and allowing a baby who survives an abortion to outside the womb to be ignored as it sits and dies seperated from the mother), gay marriage and protecting a mandated government health program that the majority of America doesn't want.

http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama_baipa.htm

The same empty circlejerk political crap that we got out of Tampa. A completely made up story with no basis in reality about the last four years - the same as we got from Tampa. Promises to do better - the same baseless mindless crap we got out of Tampa.

Political conventions are masturbatory exercises put on for the benefit of the party themselves, and not for the average voter. Anyone who sheds a tear over them or gets "inspired" by them is a gullible political zombie.

Does that mean the loony tunes "religious" nuts with closeted sexual issues are going to start calling people sluts again?

Have to wonder one thing, especially after Katrina. They are having the RNC now, and another hurricane shows up, what are the odds of that happening,lol

Mookie - your sounding a wee bit cynical! There is hope for ya yet! :salute:

I'm much more cynical and disillusioned with today's political machine than you all give me credit for. :arrgh!: :up:

Oh yeah...here's a funny from the RNC

http://i.imgur.com/P8kpY.jpg

Not only is that funny - "Team R" owns its share of the blame for how that clock is running.

What Hap said but you gotta wonder at the Republicans lack of common sense in setting up a gotcha shot gift to the Dems like that. What's next, Romney going to a Halloween costume party thrown by the Press Corps dressed as a nazi?

Oh wait the GoP already tried that!

Rich Lott (R) third from left.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...ng_resized.jpg

How dumb can one be?

Eh, didn't Romney tell anti-abortion folks he was pro-life and pro abortion folks he was pro choice?, I believe there is video proof of this on Youtube.... Anyhow hes a serial flip-flopper, I couldnt guess what he would actually do as president - but it will be probably be nothing new, hes not exactly worlds apart from Obama on paper. The Pre Election debates between those two will be pretty boring methinks. Lots of petty hair splitting I reckon.
What a leader says while he is campaigning and what he says while in power are often two different things anyway. Im amazed we still take anyones campaign promises seriously at all.

And BHO is not a wind sock......:har:

Another Illinoisan chiming in,
And I will be the first to admit that I haven't been following this whole "election" thing as close as I probably should be. And I apologize for stating the obvious, as I'm sure I will quite often

I believe the republican party made a terrible choice in Nominating Romney, I think Ron Paul would have been a better choice, IMHO.
I also hold my opinion that Washington DC has lost track of the ideology this country is built around, which is that everyone should have the freedom to do what they want with their lives, religiously, physically, otherwise, While the Government simply assures that we can all live together harmoniously through laws designed to keep things cohesive and from getting out of control.
I think we've lost track of the whole "separation of church and state" thing that our forefathers pushed to have in this country. It is not a governors, politicians, or president's place to say "well, God doesn't want people to get abortions, so I'm going to outlaw them entirely"
Thats like the president banning junk food because he's on a diet. It's not fair to the people who aren't on a diet and, while it's fair to (hypothetically) the majority of the country too because they are on diets, it is removing a deserved freedom from those that aren't dieting.
the same example can go for homosexuality, as well.

I'm not a fan of Obama, and I'm definitely not a fan of Romney (I look at their views on foreign policy and Romney might as well be shooting himself in the foot)

While I agree that the "lesser of two evils" tack isn't a good one, I've grown weary of our political system here, and I think we should just...well, for lack of a better word, purge the current house, senate, and everything else and start fresh with people who will friggin' work together, no matter their differences in life, and for chrissakes keep the churches out of it.

In regards to the whole establishment disestablishment thing, I don't think its losing track so much as simply that a lot of people even understand it or why it exists.
Many of these people tend to have it as "seperation of church and state(unless its my version of church and state)".
Which of course comes right to the very reason why the seperation of church and state was put there and the very long line of historical examples of why it must be seperate.