So let's break down some of PLC's responses to Rick:
1. "Well, no, but then, neither did Obama. Bush did increase entitlements in the form of Medicare, part D however."
Are you SURE about that? This is just a few of many links that prove you are "factually challenged":
http://www.repealobamacare2011.com/#/obamacare-facts
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24154
http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/eight-obamacare-facts-detailing-some-of.html
From your first link:
MORE SPENDING & MORE TAXES
$940 billion: The estimated cost of health care reform over the next 10 years.
40% Tax: A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018.
yes, more spending, and more taxes, just like the Bush idea. Two peas in a pod. Nothing about the government "taking over" however.
From your first link:
So he publicly bullied the GM bondholders into accepting a much worse deal. Under the White House plan, the federal government was awarded a 60 percent stake of GM, the Canadian government got 12.5 percent, and GM’s unions got 17.5 percent while the bondholders walked away with just 10 percent. Defenders of the bailout say all this was worthwhile because the effects of a failure of GM would have been catastrophic.
OK, so it would have been catastrophic for everyone, except perhaps the federal government. It would have been a disaster for those bondholders. Did they get a raw deal? Maybe they did, I'm not sure just what the details are. Your source isn't exactly what you'd call unbiased, so that doesn't really prove one way or the other.
Wasn't the original statement that Obama "forced out" the bondholders?
3. "Should have, but no. Gitmo should never have been opened to begin with."
I agree with you on that. We should have just killed all of the Islamo-terrorists we captured, instead of housing them in a RESORT like Gitmo.
Yes, the terrorists should have either been killed in combat, or left alone. Calling them "enemy combatants" led to keeping them locked up. They're still locked up.
So, I guess we agree on that one.
4. "No, and neither did Obama. Both were/are opposed to he "fairness doctrine."
Another statement that is not true, if you know the FACTS. It seems as though Obama is involved in a "backdoor" Fairness Doctrine.
Here's one of the many links are available:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566
Only Anne Coulter could say:
Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.
and conclude that Obama is for the Fairness Doctrine.
If he's so much in favor of it, why isn't he advocating it? Why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress even bring it up? No, that is a 'sky is falling" sort of response from left wing media: "OMG! There's this fairness doctrine out there! Obama is a Democrat, and he is on the other side, so he must be for the fairness doctrine!
Nope. Not plausible.
5. "No. Was Obama? Did it make him a Communist?"
Many people would say that Obama is indeed a communist. But, in today's "politically correct" world, communists are called "progressives" or far left wingers.
Words have meanings, real ones. Pinning the word "Communist" on Obama is just making up a creative meaning in order to use the word as a pejorative.
Sure, both Obama and Bush are progressives, liberals, and leftists. Neither one is a Communist, however.
6. "Did Obama "cut and run from Iraq, as predicted by the right wing ranters?"
Actually, Obama hasn't had to do any "cutting and running" in Iraq. He is simply following the withdrawal plan that Bush already had in place when he left office.
Correct. He carried on the same policies in Iraq that his predecessor did. Bush = Obama.
TruthSeeker;1596097. "Did both support deficit spending?"
said:
There is Bush-style "deficit spending" (under $500 billion in 2008) and there is Obama-style "deficit spending (over $1.5 trillion in 2011). Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?
It is not a difference in kind. It may be a difference in scale, except those outrageous trillion + deficits started the last year of the Bush administration. Yet another similarity.
8. "Did both support a bail out fund totaling in the hundreds of billions?"
Yes, both Bush and Obama supported hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds, and they were BOTH WRONG for doing so.
agreed.
Hope and change. Well, I hope we have some change next time around, but I'm not holding out much hope for change. More like despair and stagnation.
