Obama to Republicans: My friends, let us work together
President Barack Obama used his Thursday press conference to diagnose Republicans as fear-mongering, spiteful, obstinate, petulant and obstructive…
Obama coupled his passive-voice diatribe with his more-in-sorrow-than-anger promise that he “would much prefer a constructive conversation with the Republicans about how do we get some stuff done.”…
“This does frustrate me: [GOP-led] states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other reason than political spite,” he said, while denying that the states would actually have to tax state residents billions of dollars to fund government-run healthcare for millions more people. “You’ve got 5 million people who could be having health insurance right now at no cost to these states ”” zero cost to these states ”” other than ideological reasons,” said Obama…
GOP activists are deceptive, he suggested. “We see accusations that the law is hurting millions of people being completely debunked ”” as some of you in the press have done,” he said.
What a nasty piece of work he is. And the press is his willing handmaiden, as he acknowledges in that last sentence I quoted.
Presidents used to think they had to take a high tone when they spoke in public, and at least pay lip service to respecting their opponents and crediting them with some sort of goodwill. Obama’s blown that idea out the water.
[NOTE: States will have to pay for 10% of the Medicaid expansion by 2020:
The federal government would pick up the tab for most of the Medicaid expansion when it is implemented in 2014, but states would be required to pay for 10 percent of it by 2020. Though a countrywide expansion would provide coverage for some 17 million Americans who otherwise do not qualify for Medicaid, some states, including Florida, Mississippi, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, say that paying for even 10 percent of the expansion is too much for their tight budgets.
Remember also that, unlike the federal government, states are required to balance their budgets.
Obama (and his willing supporters; both the news media and those who voted for him) blew any sense of respect out of the water when he gave the finger to Hillary.
Such a classless act should have lost ANY politician in a civilized society ALL votes; instead Obama’s supports thought it made him “cool.”
Such a society is doomed.
Screw’em.
What’s in it for us?
“What a nasty piece of work he is.” You are being too kind.
hey he ‘s being *tuned out*, let him rave, let him rant
like a petulant kid
Everybody’s gotten tired of his sthick
Putin, Iran & Assad don t listen why should Repubs
“NOTE: States will have to pay for 10% of the Medicaid expansion by 2020:”
I believe that even when the Feds theoretically propose to fund 100% of the expanse, they are merely talking about 100% of the expense of each Medicaid recipient for their medical care.
There would be increased administrative costs to the states due to the mere fact that the expansion would mean an increased number of people that would be eligible for the program.
In other words, early on in Obamacare the states wouldn’t be spending an extra dime on the new Medicaid patients’ medical expenses. But the states would have an expanded program, not all the costs of which the Feds would be reimbursing.
As all things Obamacare, you have to read the fine print.
Yes, this is what I was looking for. Also the correct terminology; we know the Feds are promising to pay 100% of the benefit costs. But not the administrative costs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/expanding-medicaid-the-real-costs-to-the-states
“…The most recent available Medicaid expenditure data (for federal FY 2006 and 2007) show that administrative expenses add an average of 5.5 percent on top of total (federal and state) benefit costs and that, on average, the federal government pays 55 percent of total administrative costs, with the other 45 percent paid by the states.[2] Because neither bill changes the match rates for administrative costs, this additional state spending on administrative costs will occur even if the federal government pays 100 percent of the added benefit costs.”
Have respectfully to disagree, a little, about presidents adhering to a civilized code of at-least-pretend respect for their political opponents.
Clinton recently started the fraudulent but highly effective “argument” that any proposal he made which purported to improve anything, if opposed, meant those in opposition were in favor of the bad thing. Ridiculous, yes, but effective, and very hard to clarify because the Left holds all the cultural cards and every instrument of government.
Th entire Democrat party, north and south, spent the better part of a century relying for political success on the use of the word and concept “nigger.”
No one opposes Obamacare other than with the giddy hope that other human beings will not have health insurance and will suffer as a consequence.
Millions of deformed souls hope that tobacco will work its nasty effects, if only a few people can become enriched.
The premise of these absurdities is not to have the absurdities accepted intellectually, but to intimidate anyone from contradicting the absurdities for fear of being perceived of being in favor of – – for example – – harming children in some way.
If you oppose slavery, or at least the right to choose slavery, you are in favor of some “nigger” marrying your daughter. This was for decades the political position of the Democrat party, north and south.
BO is not an intellectual (as Reagan was) or particularly smart (as Palin is). He does not need to be.
All he needs to know is the line, what it is, how to recite it, to put it across: don’t believe your lying eyes, consult your fears.
Non-Leftists generally do not realize where we are.
BO is in the party of baloney, scam, hollowness and hate-mongering. There has never been a time in history where such a party has not existed. It usually is the ruling party.
There is no intellectual rigor to the baloney party. Just a pretty good calculation of what they can get away with.
This President has continuously proven himself to be intolerant of any opposing point of view and only deals with dissent by way of vilification and insultive demagoguery. A good leader can always work with opponents. But the current level of polarization in this country serves as proof of his lack of leadership ability. We should demand and expect more of any President regardless of party or political ideology.
It’s probably a vain hope, but I do hope we’ve seen the last of the “He’s a nice guy, he’s just in over his head” campaign themes.
Obama has never been a nice guy. The GOP should have been pounding that point home for years. Nobody can get very far by straightforwardly announcing they intend to do great harm. They have to lie and say they intend to do great good. The harm is unintended. Which is no excuse for letting such a person get away with it. Which the GOP did.
Now it’s too late.
Like the immigration debate. All of a sudden, in Obama’s second term, they discover Obama can’t be entrusted to enforce the law? Have they been in a coma?
Watch the Peggy Noonan conservatives take up that hand.
Courtesy of Gringo’s research source, the Cotton Kingdom, I’ve found out some interesting things about the Old South.
Such as how Democrats ensured that abolition books were banned from libraries and that any person of social influence were harassed, stigmatized, and forced to recant any position that could lead to the reforming of slavery. The minority view was beaten down, to form a social consensus, like the Global Warming consensus. Anyone who tried to resist the Democrat leaders of the Old South tended to end up like Eich or Palin.
There was something rotten in Denmark, and it wasn’t merely the institution of slavery. Slavery, as fabricated by Democrats, was social, political, religious, philosophical, and moral. They considered it a moral system that allowed white land owners to do what they were born to do, while slaves were to do what they were born to do. A caste system for everyone, blacks and whites, not merely the economic selling of human labour.
Remind you of something with today’s Democrat party? Remember what Sanger, founder of PP, said about blacks.
The old mythology of the Civil War I was that it was North vs South. But if that was the case, why did Northern Democrats sympathize with the South’s Democrats. Why did Northern Democrats help the South’s planter caste after the war. Why was help from Northern Republicans refused and considered foreign influence, but control by Northern Democrats was valid and legitimate in the eyes of the Old South.
Civil War II must eradicate the root cause of Civil War I, just like WWII finished the job of WWI. The root cause, has not been rooted out yet.
To: His Infantile Majesty
From: NCS
Let’s get Keystone done together,’Yo.
Let’s get GWB level support and back-up done with Israel,’Yo.
Let’s stop bleating and whining “RACISM” whenever you and that Cheap F*** Holder are criticized,’Yo.
Let’s cut…ohhhhh…about 75,000 Federal Regulations,’Yo. (For starters.)
Let’s STOP lying every time your cowardly, narcissistic lips are flapping,’Yo.
Let’s STOP apologizing for our EXCEPTIONAL Country,’Yo.
God, what an awful JOKE you are, Yer Majesty,’Yo.
“Why did Northern Democrats help the South’s planter caste after the war?” asks Ymar.
I don’t know what he’s been reading, but such help, if offered, was trivial in its consequences.
Kind of like the story of Pelosi washing feet (2 total?) on Good Friday; a nice story for the gullible.
So Don thinks Johnson’s vetoes were trivial in its consequences.
You have no idea what you are talking about, Don Carlos.
Some points about Don Carlos’s and Ymarsakar’s exchanges regarding Northern Democrats and “Johnson’s vetoes:”
President Johnson was a War Democrat and Unionist from the mountains and foothills of East Tennessee who remained in the US Senate during the Civil War and subsequently became Military Governor of Tennessee. He was not a Northern Democrat.
Regarding assistance of Northern Democrats regarding undoing Reconstruction- my immediate reaction would be that this was NOT non-trivlal. Though I would need to read more. If Johnson’s vetoes were not overridden, this would indicate that a lot of Northern Democrats were aligned with Johnson.
If Congress – at this time comprised nearly entirely of northern states- could not override Johnson’s vetoes, this would indicate that somewhere in excess of 1/3 of Congress consisted of Northern Democrats who supported Johnson’s vetoes. Not non-trivial at all.
I am pleased to hear that Ymarsarkar followed up on my link to Cotton Kingdom.
Carlos here is a proponent of the War of Northern Aggression hate propaganda designed by old Democrats. Old Democrats, same as current Democrats.
The next time Carlos here sees fit to talk about the “war” or how Democrats believe whatever they are told, he’s going to get something. And it won’t be to his liking.
Also the whole “Tyrant” title attached to Lincoln is there in the package as well.
War of Northern Aggression, Tyrant Lincoln, it fits. With the Democrat social consensus at least. Some person still believing in the Demoncrat sh&t thinks he can tell the rest of us what’s what about modern day PillowCs and Husseins… a 100 years too early for that.
PillowC is damned no matter what she does. But people like Carlos think they don’t have to atone for believing in Democrat propaganda, while shooting up everyone in America that believes in Democrat propaganda. Hypocrisy is the first thing we’re going to shoot dead, you know that right. Better bite on that grenade if you don’t like it.
Since Civil War II has to clean up the mess Civil War I didn’t finish (ala, WW1 to WW2), might as well start now with the trash.
Gringo, I would be interested in reading that research concerning the ramifications of the veto, up or down. Many Southerners came to believe in the Democrat propaganda because of the suffering during Reconstruction, the lack of funding, security, and so forth. Blackmail and other shenanigans in Congress at DC would explain a lot of things, whether veto was up or down.
The year that book was published seemed interesting. Before FDR started mass controlling the South politically with welfare and other programs. But after the chaos and fire of post civil war America. By the time Reagan came around, people had done an internal cognitive dissonance. They had separated out the old stories about their ancestors and relegated it to the “Northern Aggression”, putting Republicans in a new role, the Reagan role instead. For blacks the change was in reverse, with the Democrats taking up the head space that was once occupied by Republicans Lincoln and other abolitionists.