SHOCK: House health care bill saves $260,000 per word!
Right-wing media have run with the Politico's Jonathan Allen misleading calculation that the House's recently announced health care reform legislation costs "about $2.24 million per word." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion"; therefore, using Allen's formula, the bill would actually save $260,000 per word.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Allen's calculation: House bill costs "$2.24 million per word"
From Allen's October 29 Politico article:
The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word.
In fact, bill saves $260,000 per word
CBO: "H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010--2019 period." From CBO:
Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962
According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010--2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.
Over the 2010--2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.
Using Allen's calculation, bill saves $260,000 per word. If one were to divide the $104 billion deficit reduction that CBO estimates the House bill would cause by the number of words in the bill, which Allen claims is 400,000, then one would find that the bill would save $260,000 per word.
Right-wing media run with Allen's calculation
Drudge: "$2.2M a word." The October 30 homepage of the Drudge Report highlighted Allen's story as its headline article. From the Drudge Report:

Fox & Friends: Bill "costs us $2.2 million per word." Fox & Friends repeatedly highlighted the $2.2 million-per-word calculation during its October 30 broadcast. Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Extraordinarily, with the 400,000 words -- I think it was Politico that averaged -- it costs us $2.2 million per word, what's in this thing."
Fox News' Hemmer: Bill costs "2.5 million per word." On the October 30 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said the House bill "clocks in at exactly 1,990 pages. That's half a billion dollars per page, 2.5 million per word."

















The fallacy behind O'Reilly etc. is that they presume there are no present expenditures on health care, and that this Bill all-of-sudden creates them. Your budget analogy also relies upon generating expenditures out of thin air, which means of course that there are no savings anywhere if you increase the number of pages.
What did Gore Vidal say the other night on CNN, that we are the worst educated people in the world? He said that in response to the question of whether Obama's election will mean good things. His point is, that it's all hopeless in this country.
In case you missed it, 122 people died yesterday due to not having health insurance. Is that acceptable to you?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
What a load of crap. But even if that was anywhere near the truth it would be less than the number who die in Canada and Britain waiting for healthcare.
That's right you do not have one. When the Republicans have a plan you can gripe, until then you sound stupid.
Or, if you want to try a different truth, let's all remember the conservative idea of...HMO's. That's right, Health Maintenince Organizations that did NOTHING to stem the rising cost of healthcare, and since we NEVER hear of those anymore, it's obvious that they flopped.
Oh, and according to Wikipedia, those would cost me, a single father, between $2,400 to $11,900! With the job market wrecked by deregulation, recession, and other conservative ideals, what lower-middle class family affected by this poor economy can afford it?
Try taking care of yourself and your kids and stop whining and demanding more from the government.
He Lusts for The Deception & The Lie & he Truly believes that Fox News is the Greatest.
It's been said that an African American can spot a Racist just by the Expression on his Face.
Don't take my Word for it Watch Fox & Friends & take a close look at Doocy as he interviews someone of the African American Race?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
To Hurt a Woman & not Show Contrition says everything we need to know about You.
You Send out "The Griff" for the Ambush Interview when it's Bill-O the Clown he should be Seeking.
All the Women in your community should Lock their Doors Halloween Night because "The Telephone Man" may be out in his RainCoat Trick or Treating.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Don't most of these Fox hosts ever get tired of looking like idiots?
But why should the politicians we elect to represent us take the time to read legislation if it has more pages than a Dr. Suess book and has no pictures. That is just too hard for them to do!
I don't care how many pages it has, or cost per word. That isnt the important issue, its what the bill is about! Geez!
There is a lot of vagueness in the House health care bill. For example, it leaves it up to the HHS Secretary to decide who will settle disputes over rescission.
It would have been better if Congress specified a good way to deal with that issue instead of leaving it up to the HHS Secretary to write either good or bad regulations.
It's desirable for bills to be specific.
The length of a bill is only a problem when Congress isn't given time to read it before voting. Congress does have time to read the House health care bill.
Intrade, where people actually put up real money, has the chances of the public option going through by Dec. 30 at less than 10%.
Will a federal government run health insurance plan (a public option) be approved in the US?
Slightly higher for it happening by MAR 2010, marginally higher by JUNE 2010..
Ha Ha HA! That's hilarious. But, what's the line at?
I wish I could lie like a Fox News personality, but alas I have a conscience.
It will be easy to save the $400 Billion once we wrest control from private insurers.
Yeah, I know, your friends have told you that it was cutting "waste". It wasn't.
Reveal yourself Sting. Under which moniker are you posting here at mediamatters?
With the government running it, it will probably turn out to be 2x as expensive and we'll all end up paying for it in the end. What a joke!
I hope all our state representatives vote AGAINST this bill!!
How much is too much money to spend to prevent the thousands of bankruptcies?
How much is too much money to spend for people to get preventative care so they can lead healthier lives?
How much is too much money to spend so that 43 year old men don't have to join the Army to acquire health care for his family?
The insurance company vampires have already told us that rates will continue to rise at a rate more than inflation.
Care to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
Are you kidding me? Here's some free preventative care for ya: don't smoke, don't drink, eat a healthy well-balanced diet, exercise!!
The cost of healthcare is out of control because of people who make bad lifestyle choices, and continue to do so even after being counselled to death by healthcare professionals. Multiple hospitalizations doesn't seem to deter them either- most of whose costs are already being picked up by taxpayer dollars. Asthma, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, obesity- all can be greatly reduced if people took responsibility for themselves. Oh, silly me, why should they do that when Big Brother is always there to BAIL THEM OUT and take care of them?
These so-called people that supposedly cannot afford health insurance sure seem to have money to smoke and drink, they have cell phones and new cars, etc...
Government bailouts are not the answer- nothing is going to change until people in this country are held accountable for their actions.
Healthcare is a right, not a privilege
You keep saying that, but beyond the fact that is merely your opinion, can you provide some evidence, say, in our Bill of Rights or another founding document that would agree with your opinion?
And nobody should lose that just because they can't afford health care.
No one should go broke while they're fighting for their life.
In America nobody should go broke because they get sick.
Moreover, you have the right to not partake of anything subsidized by tax payers. You have the right to drop out of society and go it alone.
You have the right to deny the fact that we are all connected and ignore the truth that when a few of us suffer unnecessarily we are all worse for it.
Republicans said way back in June that they would craft a reform bill and here it is basically November and they have nothing. Understandably so, too. If they actually came up with a plan to compare with the Democrats, it would most likely look very sad in a side by side.
And why wouldn't it look stupid in comparison? How are they going to craft a solution that bucks the status quo? Republicans are the status quo, they can't find solutions when they don't see a problem. Seriously, how are they going to craft a solution that goes against the insurance industry by protecting consumer rights, doesn't raise taxes, lowers the deficit and has zero government intervention in the market? They can't do it, their rigid ideology prohibits it. All they are left with is working toward failure.
Republicans truly suck.
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being) nothing is more important to my general welfare than my well-being-HEALTHCARE -, so it is not just my opinion but others like the founding fathers. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There's really no point in arguing about how much it'll cost, because although you try to diminish the arguments of those who worry about that, you really don't care, so your motivation is not truth or understanding, as it is a means to and end.
Every time the government gets its hands on one penny of our money we should all be front and center demanding absolute accountability, instead of people like Foghorn who basically gives them a free ATM card with somebody else's money while telling all of us to shut up, it's "health care"!
And where did I say that only government wastes, mikechuck? Of course there is plenty of waste in private companies but they don't ask more money from taxpayers to replenish the waste.
Then I miss the point here. What is it you think foghorn is not demanding accountability for?
at least now were going to be spending on something that will help everyone instead of just the select few that the pepugs favor. if you want to have any credibility at all please provide a link to a post you have somewhere made during the bush administration to show that you were as upset with spending then.
Sick to my stomach.
Why is it perfectly acceptable for you to insist that the government give a mere afterthought to what they spend on healthcare, with taxpayer money, but you feel that you have every right and necessity to make sure it fits within your personal budget?
the reason we need the government to step in is because the insurance companies take our money for the premium and then when we get sick they renig on their part of the deal and refuse to pay for things that need to be done. not because you don't need the treatment but so that they can line their pockets with our money.
the insurance industry had their chance, they got greedy and blew it. it's time for a public option. they can either compete or fold up. either way works for me.
my wife had cancer and we had insurance. they left us hanging with 200k in bills. we lost everything and it took my wife a longer time to recover because of the stress caused by the insurance companies not doing their job.
As a moral and humane people, we should be making sure that every American has the health care they need. Although conservatives may disagree, I believe no one should be allowed to suffer and/or die because they can't afford the costs associated with health care.
And as I said before, if the trend continues in health care costs, more and more Americans will be priced out of the health insurance market (a market of which we don't need). The government of which we all pay taxes to is an entity that can pick up the costs.
Who do you think the government is? And why do you think there is an unending supply of money there? Nobody can be that naive, nobody. It's easy to sit there and say the government can pay the bills, how recklessly irresponsible that is. Do you think money grows on trees, I mean, you must.
Have you not heard any of the discussions about why healthcare reform was an absolute requirement? Part of the discussion about why it had to happen was because the costs were going to strangle the government. This reform is going to cost the goverment LESS in the long run since it's not going to allow those costs to increase in the same way.
I think you are missing part of the equation here. You think Americans first thought on healthcare is to make "sure it fits within your personal budget"? I think that is completely untrue. The first thought is that everyone is provided the healthcare they need. If my son were to need a transplant of some kind, I would not care whether or not it fit into my budget. I would spend every dollar I did not have in order to make it happen. This is why healthcare does not work when compared to widgets. There is a flat demand curve and there will never be a true market price for healthcare. There is no price you are not willing to pay when it is a life or death decision.
Ya know, the pathetic thing is half of the folks on this Board probably think Obama has a stash not gotten from taxpayers!!!!!!!
There probably will be increased costs. But there will be increased benefits. Thousands not dying, hundreds of thousands not facing bankruptcy, untold thousands more who lead healthier lives because they are not afraid to see a doctor due to the price tag.
My argument is that there are benefits to these possible increased costs. And in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the costs.
That's what the health reform deniers can't see. Because these benefits don't come with a fixed price tag. And I agree with peace4all below. The insurance company vampires had their chance and they blew it with their greed.
Republicans always succeed in getting an awful compromise passed instead of a real option, then point to the awful compromise and claim it was the real option.
The problem is that to a Democrat, "bipartisan" means "both sides get some of what they want," while to a Republican, "bipartisan" means "Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get nothing." Not much different from "Republican partisan."
The public option in this bill reminds me of the "alternative energy" bills which came out of the last Administration. Instead of something real, workable, and renewable, like solar, hydrogen, or wind power, we got ethanol.
Ethanol causes corn prices to spike here in the U.S.A., causing the price on meat, milk, eggs, and anything made with high fructose corn syrup (meaning every other kind of food not found in a health food store) to go up in price as well. Ethanol allows people to keep using their existing cars, with up to 10% ethanol mixed into the gasoline. Ethanol also will not work as a solution, because we'd need the entire food production (leaving no food left to feed anyone) of four Earths to replace the U.S.A.'s current oil usage.
Ethanol causes people to say "gosh, alternative fuels really do suck!"
Dealing with uncertainty and risk is part of the job of managers, financial analysts and legislatures.
But maybe you just watched FNC and thought a bill's costs & benefits were all based on the number of pages that it prints out as??
On the other hand, legislators will be termed out before any legislation they work on now will be put through the financial grinder for growing beyond imagination and a bloated budget that is 10x what they promised, and government bureaucrats know that if they have any money leftover their budgets will be reduced and $$ allocated will be decreased. So it is NOT in their best interest to save, or allocate funds being mindful of fiscal restraint as in private companies - because if they do it's at their own peril.
That is the inherent problem with government run programs, and until that system is overhauled, waste and fraud and abuse will permeate every government program out there.
On the other hand, public servants in government are directly accountable to the very voters who are feeling so much pain from this broken economy.
By the way, how long have you been posting at MMFA, RightOn?
You refuted not one thing I wrote because you can't. I know it stings whenever anyone criticizes any aspect of your sacred big government, but until you can competently rebut any of what I said instead of dumping on private enterprise, your posts are worthless.
Your question is irrelevant and really none of your business.
You can avoid my question about your tenure here but it only makes look like you're hiding something. I only bring it up for the simple fact that I've been posting here since June 2006 and I don't recall ever seeing you post here for anything further back than about 9 months ago. Which is funny since I caught the tail end of the poster Sue, yet I see you calling the poster, DellDolly, "Sue" every time she pins you down on your inconsistencies. I think you are actually Tommy, just my opinion but I'm entitled to it. It just speaks to your lack of credibility, so keep dodging if you must.
Not to feed your Tommy obsession anymore, I have answered that already in the past, look up my initial response if you are so concerned. I have been around for years, I posted several years ago for some time as you can check for yourself, I stopped for a long time but read consistently due to personal reasons which really are none of your business. So I remember Sue from way back and her numerous incarnations. Most recently she was LuvLuLu, now DellDolly. I don't care if you believe it or not, or whether you think I am Tommy or not.
Perhaps you can point, specifically, not these vague generalities, to some of that waste fraud and abuse in government you keep talking about.
I can point to the derivatives traders on Wall St., in their go-go-go consequence free habitat, who played Russian roulette with people's pensions and lost as an example of waste fraud and abuse. Can you do the same?
As for the waste in government, as I said it is the way the system is set up for funding these programs. They have to spend every dime they get otherwise they will get less, it's common sense. So tell me, if you were given $100 to buy a shirt and were told in a month you would get more money to buy a shirt and at that point how much would be determined by what you need, would you only spend $50 or the full $100? There is no encouragement to be frugal or wise in your spending because you are not rewarded for doing so, in fact just the opposite.
I just want those who spend other people's money to be as responsible and careful as spending their own, or for a company that demands it, that is all.
You do realize that that for every dollar of federal money spent, only 2 cents per dollar goes to bureaucracy? You also realize of course that 70% of all bureaucracies are created, just like the healthcare fight now, is due to public demand? You're dealing in myths. I defy you to find a private, for profit entity doing anything as efficiently as government. Bring it.
And 19.6 billion in so called pork from your link, whatever. That number (which is actually spent more efficiently than private industry) is a rain drop in the ocean compared to the overall budget.
Get back to me when ya got something. Until then you're just a poser.
If big government liberals, who live to fund and grow every program with no accountability and satisfy every pork lobbyists dream, don't personally give you a big wet kiss every day of their elected lives, you are being shortchanged. They owe you big time.
Blah, blah, blah. You have nothing but vague generalities. Go away ya bs ideologue and come back when you have something substantial to contribute.
See, there it is again. You again come up with this "no accountability" line. Who said there should be no accountability? The insurance companies have certainly not been held accountable for their lies year after year about the only way to keep costs in line is to keep healthcare private. Well, the time for their accountability has come. And government can certainly be held accountable in this country, if citizens pay attention. Ask all the Republicans that have been voted out of office over the last two election cycles.
Go away loser.
You pathetic little man.
pfffft.
Then you asked for an example of a private company that runs as efficiently as the government, and not only did I give you two, as directly sourced from your Democratic POTUS, but you call me entertaining and a loser and want context.
I gave what you asked for, and instead of being a man and acknowledging both, you whined and stomped your foot like a spoiled child because you were hoping I couldn't.
Don't ask again is you refuse to accept the answers.
You still have given us nothing.
That quote you used, yeah, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
In the full quote, Obama is laying to rest the concerns of people who think government will leverage unfair advantage and choke out private competition in the insurance biz.
"Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. (Applause.)
I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems. (Laughter.)
So right now you've got private insurers who are out there competing effectively, even though a lot of people get their care through Medicare or Medicaid or VA. So there's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace, as long as -- and this is a legitimate point that you're raising -- that it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers, so that even if they're not providing a good deal, we keep on having to pony out more and more money. And I've already said that can't be the way the public option is set up. It has to be self-sustaining."
You suck, you twisting little snake. I'm glad you're done with me. Liars are not people with whom I choose to traffic.
I refer you to Michael Savages "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and / or Glenn Becks "Arguing With Idiots". Both show how fruitless it is to debate libbies with facts and data.
I'm the loony one. Guess you posted your condescending missive before you took in the full context of the snipped quote that Tommy tried to pass off as proof that private interests are more efficient than government. No doubt the private sector does better at things like making tv's, shoes, cars and the like, but they don't hold a candle to government when it comes to administering essential public services.
Now, I'm not saying there is no room for capitalism, hell, I'm all for free enterprise. It's just that government is better at administering services, like healthcare, that need not have a price tag.
And Obama's point was that the USPS doesn't force them out of business. Not that they run as efficiently as the USPS. FAIL.
It's like comparing private schools who don't have to take everyone and who have much more parental involvement to public schools, and claiming that private schools are better at doing the same job as public schools!
Not that I don't use the personal attack, it's just I don't pretend to be a gentleman intellect like RO purports.
And then whines about the attacks he's feeling! And then claims that we're the ones who are off-base and whining about being taken out of context when we really weren't. All because he knows better than us what we were really saying, even when we have written words to back us up and all he has is his flawed interpretation!
But that kind of consistency he exhibits in this realm isn't a good kind of pattern.
That's when Tommy morphed into RightOn.
So all is not lost ...
So how many rich old people have been sent to the U.S for health care. The total number I'm guessing is much closer to ZERO that it is "a lot".
In part because the insurance company vampires have to take their cut of the pie, which is estimated at 25-30 cents out of every dollar.
I mean, they've gotta have lots of loose cash sitting around if they can spend $1 million a day to lobby against health reform. That shows me they're scared they can't hack it in a market with real competition. Their monopoly is about to come to an end and they are freaking out. Example: Betsy McCaughey.
Labour's secret plan to send overweight children to NHS fat camps
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6142249/Labours-secret-plan-to-send-overweight-children-to-NHS-fat-camps.html
Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-NHS-rationing-body-NICE.html
Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece
Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Cancer-survivor-confronts-the-.5095291.jp
Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/21/healthcare-commission-report-children
Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/04/wheelchair-wait-children
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4597174.ece
Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-544112/Lung-patients-condemned-death-NHS-withdraws-expensive-drugs.html
I am not denying that reform needs to change -- but the way it's being done I disagree with. Where are the talks about tort reform, or allowing insurance companies to compete against each other state-to-state?
In regards to your list, no system is perfect. But here is a list for the U.S:
1) 46 million have no insurance
2) 45,000 die from lack of health insurance
3) We spend twice that of everone else (I can't repeat this fact often enough).
Also, your first sentence says "Here are some articles dealing with the government run health care in other countries" and you proceed to only posts stories involving Britain's NHS which is a socialized system. As far as I know, no one here is pushing for socialized medicine. We want a single-payer system.
The only thing it does is unfairly limit damages and hurt trial lawyers. It helps shoddy businesses and businessmen.
And that's why the Republicans like to push tort reform. They don't care about people hurt by medical malpractice - they care about hurting lawyers and helping businessmen.
We've figured it out. The CBO has figured it out. We aren't indulging your dishonesty any more.
That is actually what happened when the brains from your side of the aisle told us 15 years ago the only way to save costs was to keep health insurance private. Guess what happened to the cost of health insurance over the last 15 years?
You would think you right-wingers would at least find a new tune to hum. Government involvement (whether it be socialized medicine like in Britain or a hybrid single-payer system like in France) is inevitable. Just as are most of the fights the right-wing is still waging today. Gays will eventually get equal rights, there will eventually be universal health insurance, Medicare is going nowhere, and neither is MedicAid. You would think you guys would actually like to be on the right side of history for once. But alas, even when your ranks are only 20% you still think you are the majority. Fox News and Limbaugh with their self-perpetuating political delusion that the American people are behind you has done you no favors politically. Enjoy the wilderness.
And, Oh Oh. Looks like the left is in trouble in Congress as well. Republicans have been winning in the polls since June! Read it and weep.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
And here is Obama at 51% while Bush was at a whopping 88% after their first year in office. In fact, the Messiahs approval rating is the worst of any president in recent memory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
And don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger who is here to tell you and MMFA how far out of touch with normal folks you are.
Hmmm? I wonder?
On the other hand, Barack is doing good work, especially in regard to our reputation as a global neighbor, but he is failing miserably at telling the people the story of how we got to the point where all this deficits spending is needed in the first place. He isn't placing the blame where it needs to placed and he isn't giving the moral reason why healthcare should be a right. He has put quite a few Democratic seats in jeopardy because he won't force onto the defensive those conservative market fundamentalists who allowed the economic extremists on Wall St. to gamble away our 401K's and pensions.
The latest WSJ/NBC poll I saw had Republicans at 17%!
On healthcare, Obama is 43 positive, 48 negative, a little better than he's been doing. The reason his negatives are so high is because people on the left want him to have done even more.
Then there's the Republicans in Congress. They're 23 positive and 64 negative.
Obama's a -5. Republicans are a -41. Negative 41!!!
So don't even try to tell us how "popular" conservative political belief is. It's not true.
BTW: Be sure to watch FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace today. He will have a special guest I know everyone on this Board will love to see.
2BTW: I asked each kid last night if they were liberal and if they said yes they all got an extra candy bar. I knew they needed to help feed their parents.
Reminds me of Bush during his "Mission Accomplished" speech.
You have no point, just conservative talking points with no fact or merit. Then, just like your hero Darth Cheney, you refuse to admit you have been defeated. I can handle the truth, and the truth is that you are wrong. Bush had those numbers because we had over 3000 Americans die in a terrorist attack. We had suppered a national tragedy, and the country unified. Then, he dropped the ball, and his presidency ended with a whopping 16% approval rating! Now, if we liberals are such a minority, why was that number so low? It wasn't us, right? I mean, we don't matter, right?
Oh, and BTW, the liberals you gave extra candy to last night only needed it because you sold out our manufacturing base to India, China, and Mexico for slave labor, or as close to it as you can get. I shall laugh at you when healthcare reform passes, and then we finally get rid of NAFTA. Then, maybe, you will see that you are wrong.
...but I doubt it.
I hope they do too. It means the end of the Republican Party in those states.
And those same people don't realize how long a regular bill is. They also don't know that many pages have very minimal amts of info on them.
It's all to scare the people here who think govt is way too big, and make them think that this bill is something to be scared of just because it's big.
It's a dishonest argument. Tell me something I didn't know about any argument that righty's make.
* Hank Paulsen's three-page request a year ago for $780 Billion was better because it was smaller physically?
Three pages certainly don't weigh more than "20 pounds." Right, Steve Doocy?
* Or, if you took Paulsen's 2008 request -- without any strings attached -- for $780 Billion, it cost us $260 Billion per page.
* Or, If you want to go by Fox's fairness standard -- at 200 words per page (600 words), which is probably way less than how many were in Paulsen's request -- it would have $1.3 Billion per word.
* And, none of it was paid for, unlike the Health Care Bill.
Did Steve Doocy and the rest of the Fox fact twisters point these facts out last year? If I had held my breath waiting, I would have expired long ago.