The public option itself won't receive direct taxpayer funding.

So then why does every proposed bill in congress to date require 700+ billion in additional taxes? I hate arguments that ignore basic, fundamental logic and common sense and try to hide behind weasel-speak and (Wilson!) lies. "Public option won't receive direct taxpayer funding." Yeah - right. There may not be a pile of money labeled "Direct Taxpayer Funding For Public Health Insurance" but you and I both know quite well that the public funding of insurance is going to be subsidized by taxes.

This is why Wilson called Obama a liar. Obama also hides truth behind weasel-speak, mumbo-jumbo, and flat out BS.

CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF OBAMA LIES.

Today Obama CUT missle defense in Europe, essentially turning his back on Poland & the Czechs. Now - I don't have a problem with less money going to government. But how did Obama describe his CUTS in defense?

To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.

In a word... BULL! He CUT the program, and his speech is all weasel-speak puffery about how it's stronger, bigger, and protects all our allies. How is it more comprehensive? What proven technology is it using? How does it stop long range missiles? HOW will it ensure protection for Poland & the Czechs? And neolibs everywhere are nodding their heads thinking this guy is intelligent, when all he's doing is slinging complete BS and hoping everyone is too stupid or bored to bother with such things as 'details', 'proof', and 'logic'.

That's why Wilson is right to call him a liar. And that's why it is completely true to say that Obama & neolibs are lying when they say that public health care 'option' won't use taxes. I mean - just how stupid does a person have to be to BELIEVE that load of hotspur?

No, he clearly said that if we do nothing for 20 years and keep same level of inflation-adjusted benefits, the amount to pay out in interest on 20 years of borrowing to pay retirement benefits will be larger than the entire military budget.

Here's the real trick to this. We spend X trillions every year. We can only afford to maintain these Bush deficit spending by robbing the social security and medicare funds. See, the baby boomers for the most part already paid into the system approximately what they will take out. (Not really, but if it was wisely invested.. it would have grown to cover the population bubble)

What happens it that there is no money being invested. It's like your company 401k, but instead of investing it they spent it on R&D every year, and when people retire they just take it out of the corporate profits. Well eventually if the company stops growing, or everyone quits, there will be no money to put back into the 401k plans.

Literally, right now, your social security is being spent in Iraq. It's being spent on missle defense systems. It's being spent on predator drones. It's being spent on Enron and corporate welfare and federal pension guarantees.

Mostly, your retirement social security and medicare is being stolen from you everytime companies "restructure" and lay people off and collect tax write-offs to move jobs overseas. It's being stolen from you and paid into corporate stocks and investor programs. And guess what the solution is???
Raise retirement eligible age to 70, then 75, then 80. You will be working at Walmart until you die. Because otherwise you will be destitute, unless you have your own 401k that saved up enough.

Go read the history and the point of Social Security in the first place. We are going to have millions of impoverished homeless old people left to rot in state run (Halliburton contracts) institutions.

Buy stock in cat food companies!

This press conference was 14 weeks ago. Even with his time at the Crawford Ranch, he could have maybe looked into this. Sure, wingnuts, he's making the US safer. If only we had spent trillions of dollars on a missle defense program like Reagan wanted... (oops, we did spend that money on missle defense and in Iraq)

Q It’s increased is nuclear capabilities. It’s abandoned six-party talks, and it’s launched these missiles.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Why shouldn’t Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a failed one?

THE PRESIDENT: Because it takes time to get things done.

Q What objective has the U.S. government achieved when it comes to North Korea? And why does the administration continue to go back to the same platform process if it’s not effective in changing North Korea’s behavior? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Suzanne, these problems didn’t arise overnight, and they don’t get solved overnight. It takes a while. Again, I think if you look at the history of the North Korean weapons program, it started probably in the ’80s. We don’t know — maybe you know more than I do — about increasing the number of nuclear weapons. My view is we ought to treat North Korea as a danger, take them seriously. No question that he has signed agreements and didn’t stick by them. But that was done during — when we had bilateral negotiations with him, and it’s done during the six-party talks.

You’ve asked what we’ve done. We’ve created a framework that will be successful. I don’t — my judgment is, you can’t be successful if the United States is sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out of options very quickly if that’s the case. In order to be successful diplomatically, it’s best to have other partners at the table. You ask what we’ve done. We got the six-party talks started. And that’s a positive development. It’s a way to solve this problem diplomatically.