Quote
August 11, 2012
5 notes
"

According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don’t fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.

The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.

And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton’s plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they’ve done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that’s the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn’t indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

[…]Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior. But the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we’ve heard tonight, we still don’t know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don’t know the level of subsidies that she’s going to provide, then you can have a situation which we’re seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it even with the subsidies.


And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.

That is a genuine difference between myself and Senator Clinton. And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don’t mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That’s not something they’re objecting to.

The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that’s my goal when I’m president of the United States.

"

—

Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Debate

______________________________________
Soooo…Obama lied or he’s working with the insurance companies to make them even more rich and evil.

Tags: obama clinton debate healthcare defeat jihad liberal progressive politics

Text
May 15, 2011
7 notes

Washington Post: Demagoguery 101

“I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.”

— Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, May 10

Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of autistic and Down syndrome kids? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican Medicare plan would make old folks “die sooner”?

In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just 11 minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”

Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”

How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.

This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.

Accordingly, the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.

“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

More here

Tags: obama immigration republicans partisanship debate krauthammer

Text
October 15, 2010

Harry Reid’s Failing Memory…or Speaking English is Racist…unless it helps my campaign

Tonight was the big Nevada Senate debate between Republican Sharron Angle and Democrat Incumbent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Las Vegas.  Mitch Fox of PBS, the debate moderator, asked Reid a very specific question.  Reid gave a very misleading answer. 

Mitch Fox:  Ok, on this next question I am going to ask for a simple yes or no in response to this question and that’s this.  Mrs. Angle you will go first.  Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States.

Sharron Angle:  Yes.

Senator Harry Reid:  English is already the official language.

This is not true.  There is no amendment to the constitution making English the official language.  As a matter of fact, Reid attacked Senator Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) proposal to make English the official language of the United States as “racist” merely four years ago on the Senate floor. 

According to a May 18, 2006 story in the Washington Times:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language “racist” on the Senate floor yesterday.  “This amendment is racist. I think it’s directed basically to people who speak Spanish,” the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.  Moments later, the Senate approved the measure on a 63-34 vote. Virtually all Republicans were joined by 11 Democrats to approve the largely symbolic amendment. Immediately following that vote, the Senate approved a second amendment, declaring on a 58-39 vote that English is the “common and unifying language.”

More here

Tags: Harry Reid elections debate democrats