FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law





deanhills
Well, they're doing it! The House has voted to repeal Obama's Health Care Law. I thought the Republicans would just have worked on getting parts of the Law changed that involved the financial aspects of it, but looks as though they want to repeal the whole shebang. But will they succeed with this?
Quote:
Swiftly honoring a campaign pledge, newly empowered Republicans pushed legislation to repeal the nation's year-old health care overhaul through the House Wednesday night, brushing aside implacable opposition in the Senate and a veto threat from President Barack Obama.

The 245-189 vote was largely along party lines, and cleared the way for the second phase of the "repeal and replace" promise that victorious Republicans made to the voters last fall. GOP officials said that in the coming months, congressional committees will propose changes to the existing legislation, calling for elimination of a requirement for individuals to purchase coverage, for example, and recommending curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits.

Source: Yahoo!News
Voodoocat
I hope we can get rid of this monstrosity and make meaningful healthcare reform that does not drive America into unsupportable debt.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
I hope we can get rid of this monstrosity and make meaningful healthcare reform that does not drive America into unsupportable debt.
I guess the next challenge is the Senate, and that is where all the wheeling and dealing will be taking place.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
I hope we can get rid of this monstrosity and make meaningful healthcare reform that does not drive America into unsupportable debt.
I guess the next challenge is the Senate, and that is where all the wheeling and dealing will be taking place.

And then the White House, where all the vetoing will take place. ^.^


At least the Republicans are fulfilling their campaign promises... That's something you don't often get.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
I hope we can get rid of this monstrosity and make meaningful healthcare reform that does not drive America into unsupportable debt.
I guess the next challenge is the Senate, and that is where all the wheeling and dealing will be taking place.

And then the White House, where all the vetoing will take place. ^.^
Right, it was in the back of my mind and I completely forgot to mention that. Obama would however have to be very careful before using it, as it could mean political seppuku for him. It is a pity that he had spent so much of his Presidential energy on the health care reform legislation, as in the end it looks as though it is going to define his contribution as a President. Those who are critical of the legislation may want to throw him out with the legislation.

ocalhoun wrote:
At least the Republicans are fulfilling their campaign promises... That's something you don't often get.
Right. But that must be the easy part. The difficult part will be how to put something better and less costly in the place of the current legislation. That would require some serious brain work. Hopefully they will go to the people to ask them what they want instead of trying to think for them as Obama did.

I thought this cartoon was quite meaningful of how intricate the current health care legislation is with regard to layers and layers of negotiated band-aid strip rules.
standready
deanhills wrote:
It is a pity that he had spent so much of his Presidential energy on the health care reform legislation,

How can you say that? Yes, he talked alot about 'doing' it. Work on details - NO! The Democrats "rammed" the bill through without allowing any time for review much less discussion. Obamacare needs to be repealed and started again from scratch.
As for now, we can only hope that the "forced" purchased of insurance will be struck down as unconstitutional. Of course, that will piss off the insurance companies that lobbied to get their skim $$.
watersoul
I won't get involved in the politics of it all because the US system is so different to ours here in the UK it's a bit like comparing apples with oranges. I will say though, that I truly hope you guys find something that eventually offers a decent basic safety net for all your citizens to access some kind of 'free at point of need' healthcare.
It's a difficult one I know, but millions of folk potentially suffering without a light at the end of their tunnel because of lack of funds has got to be a situation that no-one really wants.
liljp617
It is interesting to see people think the other side will somehow pull a magic bill out of all this. People still think there are two distinct parties with different goals. No, what we'll get is another bill that is hardly different -- it might benefit some different organizations/industries, but the principle will be the same. Why? Because we have a political system run by two parties that, at the end of the day, actually want precisely the same things...bragging rights and money for their "big" friends.

I wish them luck, but I certainly won't get my hopes up.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
It is interesting to see people think the other side will somehow pull a magic bill out of all this. People still think there are two distinct parties with different goals. No, what we'll get is another bill that is hardly different -- it might benefit some different organizations/industries, but the principle will be the same. Why? Because we have a political system run by two parties that, at the end of the day, actually want precisely the same things...bragging rights and money for their "big" friends.

I wish them luck, but I certainly won't get my hopes up.
Ten out of ten for this one liljp617. If the roles had been reversed, then the Dems would have wanted the legislation to be repealed as well. I don't think anyone is really criticizing the idea of the Legislation however, more the fact that quite a lot of it had happened in too great a hurry. Remember a year ago in December when the House barely got a day to read a Bill that was over the thousand pages long? The legislation is also too clumsy, too many band-aid strip rules pasted over the legislation and too many behind the door negotiations resulting in more band-aid strip rules. Let's hope that if the opposition gets a chance to improve on it. Make the legislation less loaded and less complicated, fewer pages, and simpler to understand. And lets hope they can work the costs so that they will be more transparent and easier to calculate.

I get the feeling that the legislation will not get repealed, and the Republicans already know that, but they would like to gather as much leverage as they can to get as much of the legislation changed as they can at the Senate level.
handfleisch
Funny how the Repubs said their priorities would be jobs and the deficit, and instead they are wasting time with their vendetta against HCR which has nothing to do with jobs and that will raise the deficit. (Their claim that this repeal has anything to do with jobs is pure baloney, all analysis says the bill is mostly job-neutral. And they themselves admit that repealing HCR would be raising the deficit.)

Does it need to be mentioned yet again that this HCR is almost the same as Republican's Mitt Romney solution from the 1990's? In other words, the conservative option of the 1990's is now too "liberal" for the neocons of the 21st century Republicans. Pure madness.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
It is interesting to see people think the other side will somehow pull a magic bill out of all this. People still think there are two distinct parties with different goals. No, what we'll get is another bill that is hardly different -- it might benefit some different organizations/industries, but the principle will be the same. Why? Because we have a political system run by two parties that, at the end of the day, actually want precisely the same things...bragging rights and money for their "big" friends.

I wish them luck, but I certainly won't get my hopes up.
Ten out of ten for this one liljp617. If the roles had been reversed, then the Dems would have wanted the legislation to be repealed as well. I don't think anyone is really criticizing the idea of the Legislation however, more the fact that quite a lot of it had happened in too great a hurry. Remember a year ago in December when the House barely got a day to read a Bill that was over the thousand pages long? The legislation is also too clumsy, too many band-aid strip rules pasted over the legislation and too many behind the door negotiations resulting in more band-aid strip rules. Let's hope that if the opposition gets a chance to improve on it. Make the legislation less loaded and less complicated, fewer pages, and simpler to understand. And lets hope they can work the costs so that they will be more transparent and easier to calculate.

I get the feeling that the legislation will not get repealed, and the Republicans already know that, but they would like to gather as much leverage as they can to get as much of the legislation changed as they can at the Senate level.


Any bill is going to be long, complicated, and difficult to understand. They're trying to write a single bill to cover 50 states with a huge array of different problems. It's health care at that, and organizing health care is inherently quite complex.

In any case, it's highly unlikely the bill will just be tossed out the window. The only significant thing that may happen is funding gets blocked from specific parts of the bill.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Funny how the Repubs said their priorities would be jobs and the deficit, and instead they are wasting time with their vendetta against HCR which has nothing to do with jobs and that will raise the deficit. (Their claim that this repeal has anything to do with jobs is pure baloney, all analysis says the bill is mostly job-neutral. And they themselves admit that repealing HCR would be raising the deficit.)

Does it need to be mentioned yet again that this HCR is almost the same as Republican's Mitt Romney solution from the 1990's? In other words, the conservative option of the 1990's is now too "liberal" for the neocons of the 21st century Republicans. Pure madness.
I thought one of their priorities was to cut costs, and wouldn't the repeal of the health care legislation (which probably is not going to be repealed in the end but will be used as leverage to reform the financial parts of the legislation) and trying to cut costs in the legislation fit into their priorities. I seem to recall that Obama spent most of all his energy on the Health Care Legislation, while the proverbial Rome was burning. I.e. people were unemployed.

liljp617 wrote:
Any bill is going to be long, complicated, and difficult to understand. They're trying to write a single bill to cover 50 states with a huge array of different problems. It's health care at that, and organizing health care is inherently quite complex.
Exactly, that is why there should have been more care taken over it. It was a mother of bills that needed careful thought and couldn't be equal to the speed of other Bills.

I agree, and think I said as much as well, when this repeal bill gets to the Senate it won't be passed. Instead negotiations will start and in the end the legislation will be probably even more complicated and pasted over by hundreds more of those famous band-aid strips than before. Lawyers are going to get wealthy on this, that is for sure, particularly when the legislation is finally implemented.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Funny how the Repubs said their priorities would be jobs and the deficit, and instead they are wasting time with their vendetta against HCR which has nothing to do with jobs and that will raise the deficit. (Their claim that this repeal has anything to do with jobs is pure baloney, all analysis says the bill is mostly job-neutral. And they themselves admit that repealing HCR would be raising the deficit.)

Does it need to be mentioned yet again that this HCR is almost the same as Republican's Mitt Romney solution from the 1990's? In other words, the conservative option of the 1990's is now too "liberal" for the neocons of the 21st century Republicans. Pure madness.
I thought one of their priorities was to cut costs, and wouldn't the repeal of the health care legislation (which probably is not going to be repealed in the end but will be used as leverage to reform the financial parts of the legislation) and trying to cut costs in the legislation fit into their priorities. I seem to recall that Obama spent most of all his energy on the Health Care Legislation, while the proverbial Rome was burning. I.e. people were unemployed.

1. If you accuse Obama of spending all his energy on HCR while unemployment was high, then the same goes for the Republicans now spending all their time trying to repeal it while unemployment is high.
2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.

About 1. above, your premise is false anyway. Obama spent all his energy on both economic recovery in the worldwide financial crisis and HCR (and a lot more). The economy went from near collapse to recovering well in almost every area except employment, which as expected is taking longer to adjust (and there are many factors to this, many of them outside of the president's control).
Voodoocat
Quote:
Their claim that this repeal has anything to do with jobs is pure baloney, all analysis says the bill is mostly job-neutral


Wrong. Check out this list:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/30/heritages-ernest-istook-schools-ed-schultz-on-how-obamacare-kills-jobs-and-hurts-poor/

http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/obamacare-waivers-given-to-111-businesses-but-few-know-where-to-apply-for-it
(If Obamacare did not hurt business, why apply for a waiver?)

Note: you do not have to agree with these ideas, you just have to recognize that ALL ANALYSIS does not say that the bill is mostly job-neutral.

Another error:

Quote:
Funny how the Repubs said their priorities would be jobs and the deficit


The Republican party and Tea Party loudly opposed Obamacare and once passed, just as loudly clamored for its repeal.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

1. If you accuse Obama of spending all his energy on HCR while unemployment was high, then the same goes for the Republicans now spending all their time trying to repeal it while unemployment is high.


Yep, and it (expending copious effort on a health care bill) was a bad idea both times.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
1. If you accuse Obama of spending all his energy on HCR while unemployment was high, then the same goes for the Republicans now spending all their time trying to repeal it while unemployment is high.
My point EXACTLY. When I had made it it had been the exact same response as you had made now but just in reverse.

handfleisch wrote:
2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.
I don't believe the deficit story. Anyone can play with numbers that are projected in the future, for example, those numbers are up to 2021. I'm sure they must have been heavily loaded for the right effect as well.
handfleisch wrote:
About 1. above, your premise is false anyway. Obama spent all his energy on both economic recovery in the worldwide financial crisis and HCR (and a lot more). The economy went from near collapse to recovering well in almost every area except employment, which as expected is taking longer to adjust (and there are many factors to this, many of them outside of the president's control).
Well maybe you and I am not sharing the same reality. How can you say the economy is doing well, except for unemployment, aren't the two intrinsically linked? And if you look at the article below, the unemployment should have recovered by now, and it has not. You see the economy recovering, other's don't. In fact they felt so strongly about the fact that the economy is not recovering that the Republicans became the majority Party in Congress after the elections in November?

Also refer the article below by BBC News of 14 Dec 2010:
US Economic Growth "too slow to lower unemployment"

Quote:
The US economic recovery is still too slow to bring down the country's high level of unemployment, the Federal Reserve has warned.

The central bank made the comment as it reaffirmed its commitment to continue purchasing $600bn (£380bn) in bonds to stimulate the economy.

The Federal Reserve also kept US interest rates on hold at between 0% and 0.25%, as had been widely expected.

US unemployment hit 9.8% in November, its highest level since April.

Just 39,000 jobs were created last month, down from 172,000 in October, meaning 15.1 million people were without work.

The US unemployment rate has now been above 9% for 19 months, the longest stretch on record.

The most recent data showed that the US economy grew by an annualised rate of 2.5% between July and September.

However this is not sufficient growth to allow job creation to keep up with the growing US working-age population.

The Fed's latest $600bn stimulus package was announced at the start of November.

The central bank had already pumped $1.75tn into the economy since the recession.
handfleisch
Quote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.
I don't believe the deficit story. Anyone can play with numbers that are projected in the future, for example, those numbers are up to 2021. I'm sure they must have been heavily loaded for the right effect as well.

Do you understand that both sides concede that repealing HCR would raise the deficit? Who, therefore, do you accuse of "loading" these numbers? It's nonsense.
Quote:
handfleisch wrote:
About 1. above, your premise is false anyway. Obama spent all his energy on both economic recovery in the worldwide financial crisis and HCR (and a lot more). The economy went from near collapse to recovering well in almost every area except employment, which as expected is taking longer to adjust (and there are many factors to this, many of them outside of the president's control).
Well maybe you and I am not sharing the same reality. How can you say the economy is doing well, except for unemployment, aren't the two intrinsically linked? And if you look at the article below, the unemployment should have recovered by now, and it has not. You see the economy recovering, other's don't.

You say "if you look at the article below, the unemployment should have recovered by now" when the article says no such thing. There's no "should have" in the article; it says growth is slow and hasn't lowered unemployment.

Likewise your "you say the economy is doing well" -- I said the recovery is doing well, the undoing of the damage of the worldwide financial crisis, in most sectors except for unemployment. Unemployment and overall state of the economy is something that will take monumental effort and years of work (if the work is ever done at all, since there's lack of political will to do the things necessary.) It's bizarre that people are already forgetting the near-collapse we had only two years ago and now think that somehow Obama and HCR have something to do with it.
jwellsy
handfleisch wrote:

2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.


Laughing Your pants may be on fire. Laughing

deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.
I don't believe the deficit story. Anyone can play with numbers that are projected in the future, for example, those numbers are up to 2021. I'm sure they must have been heavily loaded for the right effect as well.

Do you understand that both sides concede that repealing HCR would raise the deficit? Who, therefore, do you accuse of "loading" these numbers? It's nonsense.
OK, it does look as though I said the numbers were loaded and that is not what I meant, so my apologies for that. I tried to say that the numbers could be seen larger than they are by looking at different time frames projected in the future. For example the longer the time frame, the larger the deficit. Especially when one is projecting future estimates.
handfleisch wrote:
You say "if you look at the article below, the unemployment should have recovered by now" when the article says no such thing. There's no "should have" in the article; it says growth is slow and hasn't lowered unemployment.
OK, maybe I should then rephrase it as I had meant it. You said the economy has recovered. My point (not the article's) is that the economy has hardly recovered as if it really did, the unemployment should also have showed some recovery. It hardly budged an inch. I used the article to illustrate that the two: economy and unemployment are linked, and that the recovery has been so low, the unemployment has stayed exactly the same. In fact, if one calculated into that "recovery" the billions that came from Government for recovering the economy, what kind of recovery happened really?
handfleisch wrote:
Unemployment and overall state of the economy is something that will take monumental effort and years of work (if the work is ever done at all, since there's lack of political will to do the things necessary.)
If you read the article it said that the high unemployment has been high too long. Longer than it should have been.
Quote:
The US unemployment rate has now been above 9% for 19 months, the longest stretch on record.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.


Your pants may be on fire.


One, the bipartisan (Republican and Democrat) CBO report declared the HCR to be deficit-friendly (reducing of the deficit). Two, the new Republican majority has instituted a “cut-as-you-go” scheme that is supposed to declare how much each bill would increase the deficit, but they exempted their attempted repeal of HCR (as well as their tax cuts for the rich) because both obviously would raise the deficit and they don't want to mention that. What other reason would they exempt the repeal?

Those are just the facts. But Glenn Beck won't tell you those things when you read Duh Blaze or listen to him talking about Satan.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

2. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that repealing HCR would raise the deficit. So it does not fit into the Republican's supposed priority of cutting costs and cutting the deficit.


Laughing Your pants may be on fire. Laughing


I've seen that show before. And I agree. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And perhaps some of the costs may just be shifted elsewhere and not calculated into the projected estimate of savings.
Voodoocat
Handfleisch wrote
Quote:
Do you understand that both sides concede that repealing HCR would raise the deficit?


Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees:

Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-repealing-obamacare-will-not-increase-the-deficit/

Maybe Handfleisch will get it right one day...... Embarassed
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees:

Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021
That makes me feel better. As my common sense said that, but then when the deficit media release came out I thought maybe there was something lacking in my comprehension of how these things work. First of all, the legislation has not been implemented yet, so how can they have a complete picture of exactly what it is going to cost, and exactly what the savings are going to be.

These releases are always complicated, and the budgets never easy to read, as there are always things excluded that one would think are included, and the other way round.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees:

Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021
That makes me feel better. As my common sense said that, but then when the deficit media release came out I thought maybe there was something lacking in my comprehension of how these things work. First of all, the legislation has not been implemented yet, so how can they have a complete picture of exactly what it is going to cost, and exactly what the savings are going to be.

These releases are always complicated, and the budgets never easy to read, as there are always things excluded that one would think are included, and the other way round.


LOL. You guys remind me of the gullible victims of dishonest used car salesman with their pitches like "this car was previously owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays." You'll go to discredited sources to get the answer you want to hear while ignoring every credible source out there. In this case you believe the infamous neocon rag American Spectator with a story about a secret email from the CBO that supposedly contradicts its own the official report. It's hilarious. Maybe you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? They have to sell it for scrap due to budget cuts.

Here I will cite the facts, though obviously they won't make a difference to you:

The official CBO report (should I put that in all caps for you?)
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
Quote:
On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.


The nonpartisan Factcheck.org:
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
Quote:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office states that repealing the health care law would worsen the federal deficit over the next 10 years — by $230 billion.
...We judge that CBO’s projection, which is both official and nonpartisan, is the best available.


On a related subject the nonpartisan Polifact has labeled as FALSE Republican Eric Cantor's claim that "The health care law is 'job killing.'"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/

Does it ever occur to you smart lads that the sources you reject are non-partisan, objective and middle-of-the-road, while the sources you choose to believe are discredited, right wing fake news, FOX propaganda, and well-known liars like Glenn Beck, Michele Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh? It might make you "feel better" but you're making fools of yourselves. You might want to think about whether you want to be fools for the rest of your lives.
ocalhoun
The healthcare bill only reduces the deficit because in addition to raising spending, it also raises revenue (taxes and fees).

Repealing it would raise the deficit because it would repeal the spending, and repeal the new taxes and fees.


Reducing the deficit is all about increasing taxes/fees while reducing spending.
The healthcare bill increases both. (Though it increases income more than it increases spending.)
As a Libertarian, I'm in favor if reducing both.
Voodoocat
Ocalhoun is correct. When the CBO scored Obamacare it included 770 BILLION dollars in increased taxes as well as a 21 percent reduction in Medicare payments. By not passing the bill, American taxpayers will not pay $770 BILLION in additional taxes; therefore American texpayers get an instant $770 BILLION tax savings by repealing Obamacare. This is fact.

The 21 percent Medicare reduction has already been postponed until the end of 2011. The CBO was counting these reductions (which have not occurred and will undoubtably never occur) in the tax savings. The problem? What congressman will stand up and vote to reduce Medicare payments? The answer: none.

Don't believe this? Would you believe the words of a former CBO director? How about the views of the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaide services?

Quote:
Douglas Holtz-Eakins, the former CBO director, projects Obama-care will add more than $500 billion to the deficit in the next decade and $1.5 trillion in the decade afterward. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, concurs that Obama-care will add at least $250 billion to the debt by 2019. It’s worth remembering, too, that the costs of social welfare programs are always underestimated, usually be a wide margin.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/columnists/article_e24a24e4-2581-11e0-b92e-001cc4c03286.html

Ouch, the truth hurts Shocked
liljp617
I don't understand how anybody can enjoy discussing politics like this... Confused
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:

Don't believe this? Would you believe the words of a former CBO director? How about the views of the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaide services?

Quote:
Douglas Holtz-Eakins, the former CBO director, projects Obama-care will add more than $500 billion to the deficit in the next decade and $1.5 trillion in the decade afterward. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, concurs that Obama-care will add at least $250 billion to the debt by 2019. It’s worth remembering, too, that the costs of social welfare programs are always underestimated, usually be a wide margin.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/columnists/article_e24a24e4-2581-11e0-b92e-001cc4c03286.html

Ouch, the truth hurts :shock:


LOL. The "truth" is you cite an editorial in a small newspaper in Mesa, Arizona by a former Republican state politician there. The guy is now chairman of the "Goldwater Institute", another neocon think tank; he's yet another politician that has helped Arizona become the legendary mess it is. Like Beck, Limbaugh and Malkin, he makes his living on simpletons who believe quotes and figures taken out of context.

Again, it doesn't matter to me if you let these people make a fool out of you, just don't think the rest of us have to buy into the junk, and don't be surprised when you end up with egg on your face.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter to me if you let these people make a fool out of you, just don't think the rest of us have to buy into the junk, and don't be surprised when you end up with egg on your face.
Isn't there a saying that says you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. You may be able to shoot a hole in Voodoocat's source, but then if you look at the last few postings, there is too much evidence of "playing" with numbers.

We also need to consider Obama's record of spending in trillions, not billions. His presidency will likely go down in history as the presidency where the US completely went to the drowning stage in debt. You can come up with all kinds of arguments that he inherited a bad scenario from Bush, or that there are so many noble and good reasons for this debt, but from a common sense point of view, the more debt there is, the easier it is to play with numbers as well as hide numbers legitimately. The hiding obviously creates a less than transparent way of showing exactly where the money is, or better put, where the money is not.
Voodoocat
I'm confused. Is the CBO non-partisan or not? If it is, and since it is composed of members of both parties, obviously the members must be able to act in a non-partisan manner. If the members are unable to behave in a non-partisan manner, then the CBO is partisan.

Why bring this up? A former director of the CBO stated that repealling Obamacare will NOT increase the deficit. This statement is either partisan or non-partisan. Either the former CBO director ran the CBO in a non-partisan manner or he did not. But Handfleicsh admitted that the CBO is non-partisan.

Quote:
bipartisan (Republican and Democrat) CBO report


Therefore, it must be admitted that Douglas Holz-Eakins can act in a non-partisan manner and his statements must be judged in that light.

In conclusion, since others have alread argued that the CBO is capable of non-partisan actions , and Douglas Holz-Eakins directed the NON-PARTISAN CBO, statements from Mr. Holz-Eakins should not be viewed as necessarily purely partisan.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:
I'm confused. Is the CBO non-partisan or not?

Even if it isn't partisan (extremely unlikely), it IS political.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
I'm confused. Is the CBO non-partisan or not? If it is, and since it is composed of members of both parties, obviously the members must be able to act in a non-partisan manner. If the members are unable to behave in a non-partisan manner, then the CBO is partisan.

Why bring this up? A former director of the CBO stated that repealling Obamacare will NOT increase the deficit. This statement is either partisan or non-partisan. Either the former CBO director ran the CBO in a non-partisan manner or he did not. But Handfleicsh admitted that the CBO is non-partisan.

Quote:
bipartisan (Republican and Democrat) CBO report


Therefore, it must be admitted that Douglas Holz-Eakins can act in a non-partisan manner and his statements must be judged in that light.

In conclusion, since others have alread argued that the CBO is capable of non-partisan actions , and Douglas Holz-Eakins directed the NON-PARTISAN CBO, statements from Mr. Holz-Eakins should not be viewed as necessarily purely partisan.


Good question, Vood. Obviously the CBO panel is nonpartisan (or bipartisan if you like). And since they deal with numbers and statistics, what this means is that their reports and conclusions can be expected to be the sound, not spun one way or the other as anyone can do with statistics. Now of course an individual from the CBO can go off and make some statement that is partisan in her free time otherwise, and that statement can be taken out of context by some biased source. This Holz-Eakins would not have been McCain's economic adviser if he didn't lean pretty far one way. But the CBO reports have long been considered the only reasonably reliable source we have in the federal gov't for what is actually going on. That's why it's a bad idea to try to tinker with the CBO in a partisan way -- we would have no good idea what's going on in terms of spending and revenue without it, since everyone would like to spin the numbers their way.
ocalhoun
Saying the CBO can't publish a partisan report because it is bipartisan is like saying congress can't pass a partisan law because congress as a whole is bipartisan.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Saying the CBO can't publish a partisan report because it is bipartisan is like saying congress can't pass a partisan law because congress as a whole is bipartisan.

Voodoocat asked a good question but your answer serves to mislead.

CBO reports are accounting, endorsed by both parties. They do this so that they have a decent accounting of what's in the budget and what it means. If it were biased in some partisan way the report would never come out. It's not voted on like a law or a proposal; it's accounting with oversight by both parties. It has proven reliable for decades. A recent example of their even-handed analysis can be found here (the report that has bad news for Obama on the deficit and bad news for the Repubs on how their tax cuts increase the deficit). http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/26/133240383/u-s-2011-deficit-picture-bleak-worse-may-follow-cbo

edit to add link
deanhills
@Handfleisch. Is there a possibility that the two parties could conspire to present statistics in a certain way, either omission or special presentation, in the public interest? I don't trust politicians period, whether they are bi-partisan, or multi-partisan or whatever. If they can negotiate votes to get the Health Reform Legislation voted in, as they had done on the Senate Level, then they can negotiate stats from the CBO as well. Everything is negotiable it would seem. Hence an almost 2000 page Health Reform Bill, that started in the 900 pages. .

And no doubt after the Republicans have had their way, the Legislation is probably going to get to 3000 plus pages, the balance of 1000 pages consisting of addendums. I can't imagine that their kind of game playing could serve as an assurance of an objective presentation by the CBO. To the contrary.
jwellsy
The CBO is a pawn without a backbone to tell the whole truth.

Quote:

CBO: Obamacare Would Increase National Debt, Spend Medicare ‘Savings’
Jeffrey H. Anderson
January 19, 2011 7:00 AM


In the congressional floor debate leading up to the repeal vote, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) highlighted a point that has generally gone under the radar: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that Obamacare would increase the national debt. The CBO writes that, by the end of 2019 alone, Obamacare "would amount to a net increase in federal deficits of $226 billion." Elsewhere, in a conclusion that only the truly credulous could accept, the CBO says that Obamacare would decrease deficits. But, as the CBO notes, that's before "factoring in that the [Medicare Hospital Insurance] trust fund would hold more than $358 billion of additional government debt by the end of 2019 compared with its holdings under current law."

But at least Obamacare provides Medicare "savings" that would help fund Medicare over the long-term, right? Presumably that is what Andy Griffith is referring to when he tells us -- in the taxpayer-funded commercials that the Obama administration aims at seniors -- that, under Obamacare, "Medicare just got stronger!" Unfortunately, the CBO writes, "the majority of the [Medicare Hospital Insurance] trust fund savings under PPACA [Obamacare] would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits." In other words, the money "saved" from Medicare would be spent elsewhere: on Obamacare.

As the website for the House Budget Committee (which Ryan chairs) notes, the $226 billion in projected debt spending doesn't include "the $115 billion needed to implement the law." (That figure of $115 billion is provided by the CBO as well.) So, $115 billion plus $226 billion equals $341 billion that Obamacare would add to the national debt by the end of 2019.

But, really, that's just the beginning. Alluding to the whole range of Obamacare's double-counting and budgetary gimmickry, the House Budget Committee writes, "Add it up -- $115 billion in discretionary costs, plus $521 billion in double-counting, plus $208 billion for a long-term doc fix (minus the $143 billion of claimed savings) -- and the law would add $701 billion to the deficit over the next ten years." (For a clear and succinct summary of the budgetary gimmicks employed by Obamacare, Ryan's statement at the "health summit" is hard to beat.)

However, even that doesn't take into account the fact that the CBO sounds very skeptical that much of the Medicare "savings" needed to fund Obamacare would ever materialize. And it doesn't take into account the very real potential for exploding deficit spending if more companies than expected drop their employer-provided coverage and dump their employees into Obamacare's government-run, taxpayer-financed "exchanges."

But let's go back to the published CBO estimates. Even under about the rosiest of projections, the CBO says that, before the beginning of the next decade, Obamacare -- if not repealed -- would increase the national debt by $341 billion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-increase-national-debt-spend-medicare-savings_536716.html
deanhills
@jwellsy. Good find. Difficult to accept anything that comes from anyone, including the CBO. I wonder whether the press releases that go the the press from the CBO are written on the basis of a "need to know" or who knows, "need not to know". Smile
jwellsy
This just in!

Quote:
CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers
Jeffrey H. Anderson
February 10, 2011 2:37 PM

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...

[…]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html
ocalhoun
^ That quote reads like the cross-examination of a witness in a courtroom.

On the subject: "Sure it might reduce employment... but remember, we have to pass it as soon as possible to save the economy!"
jwellsy
This was the bill that had to be passed to find out what's in it.
It's tuff keeping these lies straight, it's intentionally part of the Cloward and Piven fabian socialist strategy to confuse, overwhelm and collapse the system so it can be replaced by a system of their choosing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
On the subject: "Sure it might reduce employment... but remember, we have to pass it as soon as possible to save the economy!"


jwellsy wrote:
This was the bill that had to be passed to find out what's in it.
It's tuff keeping these lies straight, it's intentionally part of the Cloward and Piven fabian socialist strategy to confuse, overwhelm and collapse the system so it can be replaced by a system of their choosing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy


Awesome, you two! Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA,

No, it's not an aging, unknown academic who's doing it.

It's simply a growing government, and a populace that doesn't know when to say "that shouldn't be the government's job."
It's politicians who are eager to take power over any aspect of people's lives they can... and then sell that power to the highest bidder.
It's voters who are willing to give politicians that power, not because it is good for the country, but because it (might) be good for them personally.
It's a media that avoids discussing such issues whenever possible, and instead focuses on 'horse-race' politics -- they don't often discuss what something means for the people of the country, instead they discuss what it means for the next election cycle.

That's what's destroying the USA.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA,

No, it's not an aging, unknown academic who's doing it.

It's simply a growing government, and a populace that doesn't know when to say "that shouldn't be the government's job."
It's politicians who are eager to take power over any aspect of people's lives they can... and then sell that power to the highest bidder.
It's voters who are willing to give politicians that power, not because it is good for the country, but because it (might) be good for them personally.
It's a media that avoids discussing such issues whenever possible, and instead focuses on 'horse-race' politics -- they don't often discuss what something means for the people of the country, instead they discuss what it means for the next election cycle.

That's what's destroying the USA.

Thank for the pontification! Funny how you write nothing about the megawealthy corporatists who pay for 10 lobbyists per temporary politician, who have more power than any politician and who are really screwing up the country.

But you better talk to your mate Jwellsy about the Frances Piven conspiracy which you give a pass, which is indeed about how an obscure old lady academic is overthrowing our lives! How will we survive?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Awesome, you two! Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!
So how about enlightening us as to the truth, it would be nice to hear your point of view on the subject matter, i.e. why would it be false?
Voodoocat
Ocalhoun wrote:
Quote:
but remember, we have to pass it as soon as possible to save the economy!"


Laughing

What a great response!!!!!!
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Thank for the pontification!

Any time, just ask... Really, it's no trouble at all.
Quote:
Funny how you write nothing about the megawealthy corporatists who pay for 10 lobbyists per temporary politician, who have more power than any politician and who are really screwing up the country.

Quite true! I forgot that one. You can add it to the list if you like.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Thank for the pontification! Funny how you write nothing about the megawealthy corporatists who pay for 10 lobbyists per temporary politician, who have more power than any politician and who are really screwing up the country.
So who paid for Obama's negotiation style "persuasion" PR of the Health Reform Bill? Which is worse? Twisted Evil
Quote:
Much to the dismay of doctors across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA) supported the President’s health care reform package. The cost for this support came in the form of doctor reimbursements.

Quote:
Second, the AARP jumped on board the Obama Health care express. Why? By in large seniors oppose the Medicare cuts and are fearful of the new plan. However, the White House stepped in again and offered a sweetheart deal to those in charge at AARP.

By eliminating Medicare Advantage, AARP can offer another program to seniors looking to bridge the gap in care. Medi-gap is a plan offered by AARP to seniors at a much higher premium and seniors who can afford the new higher premium will return to AARP once they are dropped by the government-backed Medicare Advantage.

Quote:
The next industry to join the Obama express was the big pharmaceutical companies. The industry offered $80 billion cuts for the next 10 years and in return the White House promised to continue the ban on low-cost Canadian drugs coming into America. But that’s not all, the White House wanted free advertising supporting health care to encourage skeptical Americans reform was a good idea.

Source: Examiner.com
jwellsy
handfleisch wrote:
Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!


Ridicule doesn't work very well on people that are awake enough to recognize the predictable typical radical tactics.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!


Ridicule doesn't work very well on people that are awake enough to recognize the predictable typical radical tactics.


But probably nothing would work with you, right? You actually believe Glenn Beck, who is known for his insane ideas and total fabrications.

How do you take the ridicule out of the ridiculous? What part of your Glenn Beck theory is not ridiculous? Please elaborate on Mr. Beck's theory for us and show it's not ridiculous. Really. It would be interesting, because apparently there are thousands and thousands of people who actually listen to Beck but I haven't met any of them personally.

Just explain to us how an aging academic is so powerful and how she is somehow the mastermind behind health care reform in a plot behind (in Beck's words) "total destruction of wealth coming....It’s the final phase of the Cloward Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."

Please explain in detail, it will be very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!


Ridicule doesn't work very well on people that are awake enough to recognize the predictable typical radical tactics.


But probably nothing would work with you, right? You actually believe Glenn Beck, who is known for his insane ideas and total fabrications.

How do you take the ridicule out of the ridiculous? What part of your Glenn Beck theory is not ridiculous? Please elaborate on Mr. Beck's theory for us and show it's not ridiculous. Really. It would be interesting, because apparently there are thousands and thousands of people who actually listen to Beck but I haven't met any of them personally.

Just explain to us how an aging academic is so powerful and how she is somehow the mastermind behind health care reform in a plot behind (in Beck's words) "total destruction of wealth coming....It’s the final phase of the Cloward Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."

Please explain in detail, it will be very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
Wow Handfleisch, what is it about Glenn Beck that has you so much into him all the time? It sounds almost like the Shakespeare quote: The lady doth protest too much. You're really into Glenn Beck in a BIG way! Why is that? Is he really that significant? Shocked
jwellsy
Notice the tactic of obfuscating the subject away from Cloward & Piven to Glen Beck. The entertainment value of watching a liberals head spin is priceless.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
Notice the tactic of obfuscating the subject away from Cloward & Piven to Glen Beck. The entertainment value of watching a liberals head spin is priceless.
Jwellsy, will you elaborate on the Piven ? How exactly did this old obscure lady get so much power over our lives?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Notice the tactic of obfuscating the subject away from Cloward & Piven to Glen Beck. The entertainment value of watching a liberals head spin is priceless.
Jwellsy, will you elaborate on the Piven ? How exactly did this old obscure lady get so much power over our lives?

She didn't.
Your insistence that this is the other side's argument is nothing but a straw-man.
deanhills
Piven looks like quite an old lady who has seen her day, so wonder why Beck is crediting her with so much power?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Notice the tactic of obfuscating the subject away from Cloward & Piven to Glen Beck. The entertainment value of watching a liberals head spin is priceless.
Jwellsy, will you elaborate on the Piven ? How exactly did this old obscure lady get so much power over our lives?

She didn't.
Your insistence that this is the other side's argument is nothing but a straw-man.

You've changed your name to Jwellsy now! Is this some new rule of your playground?

So, in this quote below, you (Jwellsy) clearly state that the Health Care Reform bill was "intentionally part" of the "socialist strategy" of Piven (with Cloward thrown in). The only place you could have got this notion is Glenn Beck, since he is the one who has snatched Piven's name from obscurity to make her the mastermind of a grand plot to, as you say below, "collapse the system". This (insane) theory does indeed ascribe a huge amount of power to this old lady, just as I said. Now, would you like to detail your own alternate version of Beck's conspiracy theory that somehow manages to blame the obscure old lady for the plan to "collapse the system" while at the same time saying she doesn't have any power? Or preferably go back to being a liberatarian utopian and let Jwellsy1 answer.
jwellsy wrote:
This was the bill that had to be passed to find out what's in it.
It's tuff keeping these lies straight, it's intentionally part of the Cloward and Piven fabian socialist strategy to confuse, overwhelm and collapse the system so it can be replaced by a system of their choosing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Notice the tactic of obfuscating the subject away from Cloward & Piven to Glen Beck. The entertainment value of watching a liberals head spin is priceless.
Jwellsy, will you elaborate on the Piven ? How exactly did this old obscure lady get so much power over our lives?

She didn't.
Your insistence that this is the other side's argument is nothing but a straw-man.

You've changed your name to Jwellsy now! Is this some new rule of your playground?

No, my name's not Jwellsy now. The rule of the 'playground' is that if you want your conversation to be private, use a PM. Otherwise anybody can and will reply.
Quote:

So, in this quote below, you (Jwellsy) clearly state that the Health Care Reform bill was "intentionally part" of the "socialist strategy" of Piven (with Cloward thrown in). The only place you could have got this notion is Glenn Beck,

A- Personally, I've never listened to/watched/read Glenn Beck. Ever.
B- I'm pretty sure that Beck isn't the only one to have ever mentioned Piven. The wikipedia link Jwellsy posted is evidence that Piven is mentioned in other places.
Quote:
since he is the one who has snatched Piven's name from obscurity to make her the mastermind of a grand plot to, as you say below, "collapse the system". This (insane) theory does indeed ascribe a huge amount of power to this old lady, just as I said. Now, would you like to detail your own alternate version of Beck's conspiracy theory that somehow manages to blame the obscure old lady for the plan to "collapse the system" while at the same time saying she doesn't have any power?

Inspiration =/= Mastermind.
Say I base my strategy on the strategy of Attila the Hun...
Does that make Attila the mastermind?
Quote:
Or preferably go back to being a liberatarian utopian and let Jwellsy1 answer.

And being an idealistic libertarian means I can't participate why?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
And being an idealistic libertarian means I can't participate why?
Because that won't be fun I guess! Handfleisch wants a Beck fan to respond positively with regard to the Cloward & Piven conspiracy theory. I have a feeling Handfleisch is going to be disappointed. Would be great though to find out what jmi thinks of Cloward & Piven. I can imagine he would have rejected it, but only after carefully working his way through the details.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I've never listened to/watched/read Glenn Beck. Ever.
blah blah preen preen
No, my name's not Jwellsy now.


I guess you didn't get it that I was asking Jwellsy because he is an actual follower of Glenn Beck (cites Beck's website and spreads the theories) and I wanted to know what such a person actually thinks. Your uninformed opinions on the subject are useless
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Your uninformed opinions on the subject are useless

Right... Perhaps I should listen to Beck to get more informed? Rolling Eyes
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Your uninformed opinions on the subject are useless

Right... Perhaps I should listen to Beck to get more informed? Rolling Eyes
Agreed. However, perhaps we are going off topic now and since this may be an interesting discussion in its own right maybe Handfleisch should consider starting a new thread or a Mod split this discussion off as a new discussion perhaps with the title: How did an obscure lady like Piven get so much power over our lives? This could be the OP/Starting Point for that discussion?
handfleisch wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Please keep us up to date on Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory about how an aging, unknown academic is destroying the USA, and now the old lady is even behind the evil Health Care Reform. Amazing stuff!


Ridicule doesn't work very well on people that are awake enough to recognize the predictable typical radical tactics.


But probably nothing would work with you, right? You actually believe Glenn Beck, who is known for his insane ideas and total fabrications.

How do you take the ridicule out of the ridiculous? What part of your Glenn Beck theory is not ridiculous? Please elaborate on Mr. Beck's theory for us and show it's not ridiculous. Really. It would be interesting, because apparently there are thousands and thousands of people who actually listen to Beck but I haven't met any of them personally.

Just explain to us how an aging academic is so powerful and how she is somehow the mastermind behind health care reform in a plot behind (in Beck's words) "total destruction of wealth coming....It’s the final phase of the Cloward Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."

Please explain in detail, it will be very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
Related topics
National Health Care in Socialist Stimulus Bill
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
Beyond Reconciliation- The Slaughter Rule
CHANGE: OBAMA'S HISTORIC HEALTH CARE REFORM WINS
Health Care bill
New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family
US health care changes take effect today. SUPER
Can the Republicans get the new Health Legislation repealed?
Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....
Obama inc. enforces greenhouse gas emissions, exempts GE!
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.