said by imanogre :

I wonder how long until all the Obama fanboys start to realize Obama wasn't about change.... it's just more of the same with a different brand.

said by Stumbles :

Obama is nothing but a bought and paid for president.

said by Matt :

I wonder how long until Obama opponents realize the word "change" doesn't mean "change everything?"

said by manfmmd :

What exactly has he changed other than the size of the deficit? (rhetorical question) Dems LOVE to complain about government spending when not in power, only because they are the ones spending it.

said by Matt :

The stage is being set for us to return to the forefront of science, technology, and education on the world stage.

said by Matt :

So while you read about the horrible 1.5 trillion healthcare plan, many people fail to realize that's a paltry 150 billion a year to ensure healthcare for all.

said by manfmmd :

A minor point about the DC school choice stuff, he is allowing those in the program to finish, but new enrollment is being discontinued.

When it's working, change it..

said by pnh102 :

There is already ample proof that national socialist healthcare doesn't work (just ask someone who is on Medicare, is in need of a doctor, and can't cough up the cash to pay for supplemental insurance).

said by wifi4milez :

[...] but when you are told you will need to wait 11 months for a doctor to treat your potentially terminal illness you might change you mind....

said by major marco :

LMAO. Clearly you have no clue as to what you're even talking about. You just wholesale swallow the spunk your government ejaculates down your throat so you don't start thinking what a raw deal U.S. taxpayers get for all the money they have to pay and pay and get ::ZERO:: in return.

said by cpsycho :

We pay into the system with taxes, that's why our taxes are higher then Americans.

said by wifi4milez :

this universal health care debacle will raise your taxes.

said by CylonRed :

"Ahhhh, and now the argument comes full circle! Obama's whole 'pitch' while campaigning was "I will lower your taxes!", and "tax cuts are coming!"."

He has actually done that already for the majority of Americans.

said by JammerMan79 :

if you make more that $250,000/yr please wait a minute while I go get my violin

said by wifi4milez :

The amount of money a person makes has nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether you make $10,000 or $1,000,000 a year, if your taxes are increased (lets say) 15% thats going to hurt. People who are just now struggling to get by are going to be hit with considerably higher taxes once all these 'welfare state' policies hit the books.

said by JammerMan79 :

huh? It has everything to do with it... from what I've read if you make under $250,000/yr you get a tax cut.. if you make more then it goes up. It's pretty clear why how much money you make matters.

How much do you pay a year for your health insurance btw?

said by JammerMan79 :

from what I've read if you make under $250,000/yr you get a tax cut.. if you make more then it goes up.

said by JammerMan79 :

please see my above post for facts on his supposed spending
btw.. if all he's doing is talking about changing the tax rates.. and you seem pretty sure all he's doing is talking, what's the problem?

said by JammerMan79 :

if you make more that $250,000/yr please wait a minute while I go get my violin

said by JammerMan79 :

It's my understanding that obama's budget includes funding for the war... the last bush "budget" fudged the numbers because he had war funding on top of it.

President Obama's ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In the first independent analysis of Obama's budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama's policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation's financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade -- $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would "not be sustainable."

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 -- double last year's level -- and threaten the nation's financial stability.

said by wifi4milez :

Well folks (and doubters) you heard it here right from the source, this universal health care debacle will raise your taxes.

said by wifi4milez :

Ok so I assume you have traveled extensively in both Canada and Europe (as well as lived In Europe as I have), and spoken to people first hand about this? NO, well then I guess you are just spouting out the 'welfare state' talking points as usual.

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.

A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months."

A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in Amercia," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed.

According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005. However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.

Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem. In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.

From Wikipedia:
The Institute has been a source of controversy from the beginning. Some charge that Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, helped set up the institute after he received financial backing from forestry giant MacMillan-Bloedel, largely to counter British Columbia's NDP government.[4] then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls. The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[5] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.

In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[6] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]

In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.

In 2004, the Institute published a Crime & Drug Policy paper suggesting the prohibition on marijuana cannot be sustained with the present technology of production and enforcement.

said by wifi4milez :

Or simply talk to any Canadian, or Frenchmen, or countless other people who are given "free" healthcare by their government. Sure, it might sound good (to those with little foresight) but when you are told you will need to wait 11 months for a doctor to treat your potentially terminal illness you might change you mind....

said by jester121 :

b. If you claim to believe that that is the real price tag will be anything other than several multiples of $150 billion per year, you are being intellectually dishonest.

said by jester121 :

c. This won't do anything for employers except cause them to cancel their health plans and send employees to the government dole. So much for $150 billion...

said by Matt :

I'm never going to change your mind, but I'll humor you anyway:

»Re: Bill Maher On Obama

and believe me, I don't like this site I'm about to link to any more than you, but the points are extremely valid: »www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2···603.html

The stage is being set for us to return to the forefront of science, technology, and education on the world stage. The changes that the news doesn't report going on with science, technology, and healthcare are the foundation for this change. So while you read about the horrible 1.5 trillion healthcare plan, many people fail to realize that's a paltry 150 billion a year to ensure healthcare for all. This lowers employers costs, puts more money in your pocket, and will push for preventative medicine rather than reactive medicine. It's better to not get sick in the first place than get sick and then try to fix it.

said by manfmmd :

Universal Healthcare, what a joke. There goes my tax bill. Not only are we going to be paying to insure, the rich, the young single adults, and those that choose to not get health insurance...we going to be paying to insure illegal aliens.

said by major marco :

Guess what? You already pay for illegals. Or did you think they were getting money from the government and the government was using other sources to finance Pablo & his 52 relatives.

said by manfmmd :

What exactly has he changed other than the size of the deficit? (rhetorical question) Dems LOVE to complain about government spending when not in power, only because they are the ones spending it.

said by knightmb :

For starters
[*]Closing Guantanamo bay
[*]Stem cell research boost
[*]Credit Card consumer protection laws
[*]Actually trying to end the war in Iraq, our biggest economy drain currently

said by manfmmd :

What exactly has he changed other than the size of the deficit? (rhetorical question) Dems LOVE to complain about government spending when not in power, only because they are the ones spending it.

said by NOCMan :

Not exactly true. Clinton was at least able to push the point that any government spending had to be paid for. We have that in Texas.. they're experts at passing laws that are not funded. So we made it law, but it cant happen because there's no money..

said by Matt :

I wonder how long until Obama opponents realize the word "change" doesn't mean "change everything?"

said by Matt :

I wonder how long until Obama opponents realize the word "change" doesn't mean "change everything anything?"

said by Matt :

I wonder how long until Obama opponents realize the word "change" doesn't mean "change everything?"

said by sonicmerlin :

He hasn't even been in office for one year. Did you expect him to walk into the white house, speak, and part the ocean waters?

said by sonicmerlin :

How about judging what he's done when his 4 year term is nearing its end?

said by sonicmerlin :

As for the economic stimulus bill, it really irks me to see people who know nothing about Keynesian economics hurl insults left and right.

said by sonicmerlin :

Why not give the new guy some time to implement a few new policies?

said by cornelius785 :

Obama IS about change. Instead of thinly sugar coating everything, he (along with his administration and partly congress) is dumping it on by the ton to ensure everything has a nice thick layer of sugar on top. Now I call that change.

also, fanboys will never not be fanboys. fanboys will always do what they do best, follow blindly to the end and beyond.

said by NOCMan :

Government is government.

Lemme guess, they rolled in money anti counterfeiting to make it a state secret.

Once again corporations have more rights than citizens. For a president who prided himself on taking only money from people he sure is starting to act like he got it from somewhere else.

said by DrModem :

Since when does the EFF start giving up on stuff because they are rebuked and told to go home?