New Republican Lies

[maxx]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-..._b_735962.html
"...Media Matters already had compiled a catalog of the 60 Plus Association's advertising misrepresentations and falsehoods going back to the middle of the health care fight last year. Now the highly regarded and nonpartisan FactCheck.org has a new analysis showing that these ads are propaganda -smears based on lies and distortions. Americans United for Change summarized the many falsehoods in memos sent to reporters in these districts yesterday. MoveOn.org, HCAN and others are organizing grassroots pressure on the stations to take the ads down..."

[oladub]

I don't doubt that Republicans haven't had their facts straight or lied from time to time. To call Fact Check 'highly regarded and nonpartisan' however, is a bit of a stretch. It is controlled by the Foundation that hired Barry to be a 'community organizer'. Let's just say it leans a little bit to the left.

The author of the article also leans to the left a little bit.
Prior to joining AFSCME in 1999, Rome was chief policy and political adviser to the speaker of the Connecticut House, co-directing the historic campaign to win and defend a new state income tax in 1991 and 1992. He was legislative and political Director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. He managed numerous legislative and statewide political campaigns, including the Connecticut House Democratic Caucus operation, which defeated more Republican incumbents over four election cycles than any Democratic state legislative caucus in the country during that time. -HCAN
This doesn't mean that he too isn't 'highly regarded and nonpartisan' with respect to everything he wrote in this article. However, in light of cost overruns with such government programs as Medicare and President Obama's own spending habits, it seems incredulous to believe that Obamacare, or the Afffordable Health Care Act as it is endearingly called, will come in under budget.

• The ads say that the new law means "seniors could lose their doctors" or that it "threatens seniors' ability to keep their own doctor." Nothing in the Affordable Care Act restricts any Medicare enrollee's access to the doctor of their choice. -from the Huffington link

If additional doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients because Obamacare has reduced their payment, seniors are going to lose their doctors no matter what the law says. This law has not made health care more affordable. It has just redistributed who gets to pay for health care. Adding some of the extra benefits listed, such as keeping 26 year olds on their parents' policy, will require higher insurance payments by someone and provide US manufacturers to move more of their production offshore.

[rb336]

I don't doubt that Republicans haven't had their facts straight or lied from time to time. To call Fact Check 'highly regarded and nonpartisan' however, is a bit of a stretch. It is controlled by the Foundation that hired Barry to be a 'community organizer'. Let's just say it leans a little bit to the left.

you are confusing factcheck.org with Soros' factcheck.com

[oladub]

you are confusing factcheck.org with Soros' factcheck.com

I didn't know there were two but it is factbook.org which has ties to the Annenburg Foundation. http://www.factcheck.org/about/

[Detroitej72]

I didn't know there were two but it is factbook.org which has ties to the Annenburg Foundation. http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Ah, the conservative-leaning Annenburg Foundation. You'd never know their partisanship if it were up to the media sound bites.

[oladub]

Ah, the conservative-leaning Annenburg Foundation. You'd never know their partisanship if it were up to the media sound bites.

What you mean is the formerly conservative leaning Annenburg Foundation. While the founder of the foundation was indeed a conservative, the Annenburg Foundation has moved on and it's projects, as we now know included the working collaboration between Obama and former bomber for change William Ayers. Perhaps to you that is conservative leaning but it appears left leaning to me.

[ejames01]

Who is Barry?

I don't doubt that Republicans haven't had their facts straight or lied from time to time. To call Fact Check 'highly regarded and nonpartisan' however, is a bit of a stretch. It is controlled by the Foundation that hired Barry to be a 'community organizer'. Let's just say it leans a little bit to the left.

[maxx]

And to do nothing about healthcare would have just continued the increase in premiums and the number of people uninsured. Maybe the politicians should have waited until the number of uninsured were the majority. Then they wouldn't have had to be concerned about the people who still had insurance that they could afford. Of course, by then who knows how many hospitals would have gone out of business as they tried to treat the uninsured? As it is the Republicans are poised to undo the little reforms that were passed . There should be a way to guarantee nearly everyone some basic form of medical care. As it is now, we spend most of our healthcare dollars on the last months of a person's life while young families who are our future are uninsured. The Republicans' campaign about "pulling the plug on Grandma" was a blatant appeal to the clueless who refuse to deal with death and dying issues.

[oladub]

Who said anything about doing nothing about healthcare? I would start with the premise that the government should do no harm. Americans should be given the freedom to arrange new agreements and options with healthcare providers, more drugs should be available over the counter, foreign drugs should be allowed, the FDA should allow more flexibility with medicines that haven't been fully vetted, medical vacations to cheaper foreign venues should be encouraged, etc.. Freedom could make health care affordable to a much higher percentage of Americans, thereby reducing the number who would be dependent on state health care solutions. In my state, the [[D) Governor has even imposed hospital and nursing home taxes on patients.

My problem with Republicans on this issue is that they too are too much in the back pockets of the insurance companies and health care companies. Like Democrats, they side with the status quo in most situations and similarly have little concern for doing what it takes to make health care truly affordable.

[maxx]

Who said anything about doing nothing about healthcare? I would start with the premise that the government should do no harm. Americans should be given the freedom to arrange new agreements and options with healthcare providers,

Like the insurance exchanges created by the new law?

more drugs should be available over the counter,

The patents have to run out first.

foreign drugs should be allowed,

Any old foreign drugs or do you think the FDA should look over the research behind them?

the FDA should allow more flexibility with medicines that haven't been fully vetted,

How much flexibility? And who is responsible if a lot of people get very sick? After all, you said that the gov. should first of all do no harm.

] medical vacations to cheaper foreign venues should be encouraged,

How encouraged? With ads? With grants? And how would that square with all the rhetoric about the U.S. having the best healthcare system in the world?

Freedom could make health care affordable to a much higher percentage of Americans, thereby reducing the number who would be dependent on state health care solutions. In my state, the [[D) Governor has even imposed hospital and nursing home taxes on patients.

Is that your idea of freedom? More taxes? If by freedom you are referring to the free market, I recall that neocon deregulation allowed the airlines to fly planes without cockpit locks which resulted in hijackers taking over the planes on 9/11.

My problem with Republicans on this issue is that they too are too much in the back pockets of the insurance companies and health care companies. Like Democrats, they side with the status quo in most situations and similarly have little concern for doing what it takes to make health care truly affordable.

We've got to get big money out of our elections so we can stop having the best gov. money can buy.

[oladub]

maxx post #77: Like the insurance exchanges created by the new law?

-I was thinking more like, for instance, $40 cash no insurance sign off on lawsuit doctor visits in addition to the $125 visits we presently have. You could still pay three times as much if you prefer.

The patents have to run out first.

-Over the counter drugs are patented too. Liberty can be a scary concept but imagine you have the rights to your own body as the abortion lobby contends. Extend that right to put whatever you like in your body too. Instead of the markup for pharmacist services, a warning would often suffice as on a cigarette pack. Instead of waiting years to fully test an anti-cancer drug, the FDA could probationally release when earlier good results start flowing in with the caveat that one takes the drug at their own risk. Cancer patients could then have another option before they would other wise die.

Any old foreign drugs or do you think the FDA should look over the research behind them?

-I think that is between the buyer and seller. If someone wants to buy US Prozac at the full price they can still do that. If they want to take a chance on Canadian Prozac at half price or Cuban Prozac at 15% of the US drug with the FDA blessing, they should have that option.

How much flexibility? And who is responsible if a lot of people get very sick? After all, you said that the gov. should first of all do no harm

.
-Doing harm would be feeding poison like Monsanto frankenfoods, DHA to milk, chlorinating water, adding growth hormones and carcinogenic preservatives to meat to the population. The FDA condones all that.

How encouraged? With ads? With grants? And how would that square with all the rhetoric about the U.S. having the best healthcare system in the world?

Insurance companies have already started doing this. If a given operation costs $100,000 in the US and can be done in India or Singapore for $25,000 no grants are necessary because the cost of transportation and the operation are a small fraction of the cost here. The topic is cost, not rhetoric.

Is that your idea of freedom? More taxes? If by freedom you are referring to the free market, I recall that neocon deregulation allowed the airlines to fly planes without cockpit locks, which resulted in hijackers taking over the planes on 9/11

.
The stronger locks and doors were put on after Muslim terrorists showed up. The government wouldn’t allow pilots to arm themselves for quite a while though even after that. I was being critical of our former Democratic Governor for taxing hospital and nursing home patients not promoting taxes.

[maxx]

Lie #4: Bush wants to abolish Social Security

Republicans want to kill Social Security. They want to shrink gov. down where, as Grover Norquist put it, it could be drowned in a bathtub.


Lie #7: Bush tax cut was only for the rich.
Where is the evidence that Democrats as a party say that? They don't. They say that tax cuts should be for everyone but the very rich. Republicans know that the top2% are their base as W put it. They held up an arms treaty and people's Unemployment benefits fighting for a tax cut for the people who need it the least. It would have meant that the rich had to pay 39% instead of 36% in taxes. Now it will add billions to the deficit, but they will do their best to distract people from knowing this. When's the last time any of your favorite righties mentioned how much the tax cut for the richest people here will affect the deficit?

[maxx]

oladub:
You appear to be a libertarian when it comes to people taking drugs,which may be poisonous, but you want people to be protected from poisonous foods.

johnsmith: I guess more liberty candidates are the answer if they face too much resistance from the establishment Democrats and Republicans who got this country so F'd up and in the condition it's in right now and plan on doing so unless they are stopped..

Your "liberty" candidates won't have a chance unless they sell themselves to some big money. That's the way our elections are paid for and the SCOTUS Citizens United decision has only made that situation more skewed towards corporate interests.

[Jimaz]

What amazes me is the ever increasing deliberateness of the lying. It's as if someone [[Karl Rove?) determined that integrity is something Republicans no longer need. Where's the concern over their long-term reputation? AWOL.

It didn't used to be this way. The infamous Citizens United decision is only going to exacerbate the situation.

[Whitehouse]

I think it's more challenging to find Republican truths....

[jerrytimes]

I think it's more challenging to find Republican truths....

While it may be challenging, it's impossible to find a Democrat speaking the truth, and even worse, they lie and believe it!

[jerrytimes]

The thing with most Democrat supporters is that they believe everything that comes out of a Democrats mouth. Republicans may believe most things that come out of a Republicans mouth they don't believe all.

[Gistok]

The thing with most Democrat supporters is that they believe everything that comes out of a Democrats mouth. Republicans may believe most things that come out of a Republicans mouth they don't believe all.

Based purely on non-partisan logic... what you just said was....

You can fool some of the people all of the time....
AND
You can fool all of the people some of the time....

Very profound!

[Jimaz]

The thing with most Democrat supporters is that they believe everything that comes out of a Democrats mouth. Republicans may believe most things that come out of a Republicans mouth they don't believe all.

That's another thing I've never been able to understand. Why do Republicans deliberately lie to their own at all? What's the benefit?

One of the conspicuous differences I've noticed is that Democrats are far too careful about covering their asses in case they're accused of lying while Republicans make a sport of bare-assed lying.

Everyone's witnessed it. They lie. You look them in the eye in that way that says they've been caught. Then they give you that same old smug grin as if to say they know they've lied, they know you know they've lied, but they don't care because in the end it won't matter. Then when they lose an election because it did very much matter, they throw some childish tantrum as if they were the ones wronged.

I'll say it again but it never sinks in. If you want to be taken seriously, don't be The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Detroitej72]

That's another thing I've never been able to understand. Why do Republicans deliberately lie to their own at all? What's the benefit?

One of the conspicuous differences I've noticed is that Democrats are far too careful about covering their asses in case they're accused of lying while Republicans make a sport of bare-assed lying.

Like Sara Palin saying Obama had secret death panels in the health care bill? How about Sara and every other radical rightty calling into question the president's citizenship, religion, etc?

And who could forget how the Bush administration made it SOP to constantly lie to Americans.

[maxx]

So who wants to privatize Soc. Sec.? To hear the Republicans, it's a dead issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081400858.html
"...he issue of Social Security is already playing out in races across the country. In Nevada, U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle [[R) has a new television ad in which she pledges to "save" the program and accuses her opponent, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid [[D), of "raiding" the retirement trust fund.
Angle's ad comes after weeks of taking on water over the issue as Reid has repeatedly slammed her for past comments on Social Security. One Reid ad featured Angle saying, "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out."...

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sharron-angle-wants-privatize-social"'I've since been studying, and Chile has done this...' During the time of Reagan, Chile's Social Security system was considered to be the wingnut Holy Grail. I guess Sharon didn't get too far in her "studying" and whatnot, or she'd know why the saner people just don't talk about Chile in much detail [[of course, there's always the optimists at the Cato Institute): .."

And there are other "stealth" candidates who would like to steal Soc. Sec. from citizens and privatize it.
http://michiganmessenger.com/41102/w...ocial-security

In fact a lot are flip-flopping like mad to get themselves elected.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42510.html

"...In South Dakota, state lawmaker Kristi Noem came under fire in May for expressing mild support for Ryan’s road map, which she called the 'right direction for our country to go' in a live chat organized by the Rapid City Journal.

Last month, she backpedaled, signing a pledge that she will oppose the privatization of Social Security, which is featured at the top of the issues page on her website, above 'taxes and spending' and 'health care.'
In Florida — a state whose residents are probably more attuned to Social Security politics than those in any other — Republican Dan Webster found himself in trouble when he suggested reducing cost-of-living increases for entitlements..

In Ohio, former Republican Rep. Steve Chabot got creative in describing his stance on the program. He rejected the word “privatization” but said he supports a reform plan that includes private accounts. Chabot has a good shot at unseating freshman Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus..."

[gdogslim]

"Media Matters is a criminal enterprise front group for democrats run by the conservative-turned-leftist journalist David Brock." according to some conservatives.
If there was ever a lawsuit against this group, and there was full discovery of emails, phone logs, and testimony under oath or in depositions, the whole game would be up and they'd be completely exposed for what they are. Which is: a criminal enterprise, in the sense that they are, in my view... violating the tax code...501[[c)[[3) and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates...
MoveOn is another left wing propaganda group funded by george soros et al.
The only time they will criticize a democrat is when they don't go far left.

[Detroitej72]

More Republican lies from the tea-bagger poster girl:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...ZHNjaG9vbHN1Zw--

[jerrytimes]

More Republican lies from the tea-bagger poster girl:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...ZHNjaG9vbHN1Zw--

That's a very liberal thing you did there, calling an opponent a name. Very childish.

[maxx]

That's a very liberal thing you did there, calling an opponent a name. Very childish.

Yes, let's not discuss the substance of the article. I know it's too painful for you true Republican believers.