Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"
"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."
"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"
Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."
Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"
Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."
Anyone have any thoughts on this? My personal opinion is that he is trying way too hard to make good on one of his very popular campaign promises - that if you made less than 200K per year (or whatever it was), you would not see your taxes go up "one dime." Does Obama really think people believe his side in this interview, with the dictionary and common sense on the other side? Isn't it worse that he had to be cornered like this, on national TV, and still deny the obvious rather than own up to it, admit that it is clearly a tax, but mitigate the damage by explaining why he thinks it is still necessary? It's only one tiny little three letter word, no big deal!
The saddest, most embarrassing part of the interview for Obama was when he first accused George of "making up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," Then, when George pulls out the dictionary, as if to say, "These aren't my words, I'm not making this language up," Obama then accuses him of "stretching a little bit." Clearly, this interview showed the nation that it was President Obama, not George, who was "stretching" by "making up that language" and "deciding that that's [not] called a tax increase."
9 comments:
Perhaps we should all be issued a little book called "President Obama's Lexicon" so that we can translate what he says into what we can affordably take from it. On second thought, the book would have to be re-edited every time Pres. Obama's convenience dictates, so that would be yet another waste.
Pretty much everything Obama said in that interview was a laughable contradiction.
Well, I've been saying all along that Obama acts like he lives in a perpetual opposite day, as it were, and this is yet another shining example of that fact.
Now I know it's somewhat expected in politics for people to stretch or spin the truth in their favor, but Obama seriously takes it to a whole 'nother level: not only did he claim to be "above all that partisan bickering" and such in his campaign (yet time and time again we see the exact opposite), but his deception and out-right dishonesty totally transcends typical political nuance. In other words, not only is he not the "non-politician" he claims to be, but he's actually THE MOST dishonest politician we've seen since Bill Clinton.
This interview is a case in point: He starts off with a bold-faced lie, claiming that this tax is not a tax (at best you could call it a fine, but that looks even worse). Then he gives an explanation that's just plain nonsense because it completely misses the point: if this weren't a tax just because it's "good" or "justifiable," then ALL taxes are inherently bad in his view, and Republicans don't even believe that. Then, when Stephanopoulos points that out ("But it may be fair, it may be good public policy--") Obama gets Chicago on his a__ (as opposed to "medieval") and ATTACKS HIM.
Most politicians at least have the sense to be careful when they're not being completely honest--they'll try to change the topic or something--probably because they realize that it would only call attention to their non-truth. Obama, on the other hand, has a completely different strategy when someone challenges his lies: he attacks with a vengeance. Oh, if only Saul Alinsky were alive to see it...(you'll have to look it up if you don't know about him, but I might do a post about him eventually)
There's another interesting revelation here, which could also be probably its own post: why did Obama think he could get away with it? As Devin pointed out, all it takes is common sense to notice this childish behavior coming from the President (I would say "leader of the free world," but given what he did in Ecuador--which would make a good post in itself--that wouldn't be accurate), or even just a Dictionary! Think about it, our President is ARGUING WITH THE DICTIONARY! What the heck? What kind of mind set does it take?
In a nutshell I think the words "arrogance" and "elitist" basically sum it up. He knows when he's lying (either that or he's just a total moron, which I don't believe for a second), yet he does it anyway...because he thinks we're TOO STUPID (elitist) to realize/accept, and even if we do we'll just be completely swept up by his charisma (arrogance) that in the end we won't care.
To me that explains this all-out media blitz we've been seeing--seriously, ALL of the Sunday morning programs (except FOX News, go figure) on the same day...?--he thinks we all have "tingly feelings" through our bodies like Chris Matthews which basically override common sense, and THE MORE HE SPEAKS, the greater the effect. Rush Limbaugh alluded to this mentality the other day when he said (commenting about the Sunday program blitz) "the interview IS the message." It's as if he thinks he earns "charisma points" every time he speaks that offset all the "logic points" he loses on substance--as long as he is more vocal than his opposition he thinks he'll win just because he's the anointed one.
This really is like what happens when a child can't explain something and he finally just gives up and says "because I said so, that's why!" Obama thinks he's the ultimate authority on what makes sense when he's talking about policy: even if he doesn't make any sense, we're supposed to just accept it anyway.
What he doesn't realize, though, is that these childish games have the opposite effect in America: the more he acts like an immature 7-year-old, the less people are inclined to believe him. If he doesn't wise up to reality soon, he doesn't stand a chance of getting re-elected.
I'm sorry guys, I love Obama. And I don't care what you call it, I personally believe to mandate health insurance is fair and a good idea. Whether it's a tax increase or good public policy, this is one I definitely hope gets placed into action. I know it freaks all you conservatives out to think the government could mandate you to do something, but I really think this is a positive step for healthcare. And it will ensure I get paid when I'm a doctor. Hahahaha (that was a slightly greedy, evil laugh.)But don't worry guys, Obama will take all that money I make to pay for illegal immigrants health care and to expand socialistic programs. So it's all fair in the end.
Just so you know, half this post was written in a sarcastic, joking manner. Just had to make that clear that that is my tone, otherwise I know I'll get a 10 paragraph response on why I'm an idiot and anti-patriot.
Great post Devin. Dirty politicians. Chris, you're right about the need for a little book helping us translate what he's saying. We need such a book for almost all of our elected officials at the national level. Maybe instead of a book we should just elect people that speak the same language as us and that don't try to lie to or manipulate us. The bottom line is we get what we vote for. If America is dumb enough to believe Obama's twisting of words that this isn't a tax we deserve to be duped. America is becoming dumber in relation to other countries and I think the quality of our elected leaders is indicative of that.
Lest we go too far (too late!) I should clarify that I believe Pres. Obama believes what he is saying. I think he is sincere. I think Clinton (Bill) was sincere too, even when he said he didn't have sexual relations, as revealed by his unabashed "is is" explanation.
With regard to Creighton's comment, here is a little factoid that was very unsettling for me: 80% of the "American People" (according to the pollster Luntz in his book "What Americans Really Want . . . Really") believe that health care is a "right, not a privilege." WOW! For every ONE(like me) who believes that health care should not be guaranteed, there are FOUR (like Creighton?) who believes that every American should have access to affordable health care. Once you accept that health care is a right, it logically follows that it should be provided somehow. The other statistics (like over 50% disfavor Pres. Obama's plan) are about much smaller details -- which of several routes we will take. It seems that true conservatives are in a very small minority when it comes to picking the destination when it comes to health care.
Food for thought.
I'm glad you cleared up that sarcasm Creighton - for a minute I almost thought you really did think the individual mandate/penalty was a good idea :)
Another thing that has gone somewhat unnoticed is that back in the Democratic Primaries, Obama frequently criticized Hillary's health care plan BECAUSE hers included this individual mandate that he now pushes. I wonder how her boss's 180 is settling with Hillary now.
So what happens if you don't want to pay the penalty for not wanting to pay for the public option?
You'll have a misdemeanor on your record and either face a $25,000 fee or up to a year in JAIL.
Wow.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall
Post a Comment