Yes We Can ! ;)

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

[conversationpc]

So, Deano...There is NOTHING bad in the bill, huh?

Congressional Staffers Complain About Double Standard in Health Care Law

Select congressional leadership staffers -- some of whom wrote the health insurance act -- are not governed by new rules governing millions of Americans and the rest of their colleagues on how they buy insurance -- and the special exemption has the Hill hopping mad.

Come 2014, all 100 U.S. senators, all 435 representatives in the House and every one of their personal aides will have to go to the newly formed state exchanges for health insurance -- just like everyone else in the country who isn't covered by their employer.

But select congressional leadership staffers -- some of whom wrote the health insurance act -- won't. And neither will White House staffers and Cabinet members -- nor the president himself. They will be allowed to keep their current plans, which are offered to all other federal employees.

And now many congressional aides who like their current health insurance policies and will be forced to switch are asking: Why?

They want to know: If an exchange is good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the people who wrote the plan? Why isn't it good enough for the president and his Cabinet?

Mass e-mails have been circulating among congressional aides on both sides of the aisle as they voice their objections to what they are calling a double standard in the health care law President Obama signed on Tuesday.

"If it's such a good bill, why did the people who wrote the bill exempt themselves from it?" asked a Republican aide who requested anonymity. "With this administration it's always, 'Do as I say, not as I do,' just like paying your taxes!"

"If we're forced on the exchange, then everyone should be," a Democratic staffer said.

"If this health care bill is so great, then why are Obama's staff exempt?" a GOP aide scoffed. "If we have to give up our health care, then so should every federal employee."

Members of Congress and their staffers currently select their health insurance plan from the pool of health care policy options that are available to all federal employees. But under the new law, unlike other federal employees, they will be required to purchase their insurance from the state-run exchanges when that part of the law goes into effect in 2014.

But the provision appears to exclude leadership and committee staff, giving the appearance that those who wrote the bill wrote themselves out of this requirement.

The White House is also exempt from moving from the current federal employee plan to state-run exchanges, although the White House said Wednesday that Obama will participate in the exchanges if he is still president in 2014.

It remains unclear why the law was written this way. Efforts to understand the reasoning behind the carving out of leadership staff from this part of the new law were unsuccessful. Phone and e-mail requests for comment from the committees involved in the drafting of the Senate bill were either directed elsewhere or not returned.

A Congressional Research Service report stated that the definition of the law as it stands now would likely be interpreted as applying only to congressional members' personal staff, and exempting both leadership and committee staff.

The definition of "congressional staff," according to the CRS report, could be interpreted narrowly to refer only to staff members directly affiliated with a member's individual or personal office. As an example, that would mean that staffers who work with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's constituents out of her California office would be classified as "congressional staffers" and have to switch over to the exchanges -- but the staffers who work in association with her role as speaker of the House would be allowed to keep their current policies.

It is still unclear if congressional offices will get subsidies to pay for their employees or if staffers with income below the pay threshold will get subsidies to buy insurance for themselves. Calls to about a dozen different offices yielded the same response: No one seems to know yet exactly how to interpret the law.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged that some committee staffers are exempt, but said leadership staff will have to buy into the exchanges like other Capitol Hill employees.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he believes the current wording means that committee and leadership staff in Congress, as well as the president, vice president, the Cabinet and White House staff, will continue to access the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, while all other congressional staffers will have to find their insurance policies on the exchange.

A Democratic aide said he thought it would be difficult enough under the new law to figure out how to navigate his insurance, but he wouldn't mind as much if everyone else had to do the same.

"It appears that some of my colleagues will not have to make these changes, which is annoying to say the least," he said.

"The president continues to say if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it, and it's simply not true," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. "This is just one example of the bad consequences of this law."

"Large parts of this bill were thrown together hastily and behind closed doors, I'm afraid this is not going to be the only surprise going forward," he said.

Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., are heading the charge to introduce legislation that would require all federal employees to have the same health care requirements and options. Both made efforts to close this loophole last year, but the Senate rejected Grassley's amendment in December.

"If this amendment isn't passed, then President Obama will not live under the Obama health care reforms, and neither will the congressional staff who were most responsible for helping to write the overhaul," Grassley said in a statement to FoxNews.com on Wednesday. "That sends a message to the people at the grassroots that the health reforms are good enough for you, but not for us."

But a spokesman for Reid said Coburn's objection to the law was disingenuous, charging that Coburn himself had created the "two-tiered" status.

"In his rush to make political statements instead of policy achievements, Senator Coburn clearly wasn't paying attention to what he was doing," Jim Manley said.

"The amendment that created this committee and personal office distinction was authored by Senator Coburn. It's WORD for WORD what Coburn proposed in Committee.

"If he wonders why committee staff aren't in the exchange, perhaps he should ask himself," Manley said. "Senator Coburn's newest complaints on health reform are too little, too late."

But Coburn said Reid's spokesman has it all wrong.

"This special deal for unelected staff underscores everything the public detests about the arrogance of power in Washington," he said. "I tried to fix this inequity along with Senators Grassley, Burr and Vitter, but Majority Leader Reid obstructed our effort."

[Ftloperry]

[conversationpc]

Good stuff from Jack Cafferty on Obamacare... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

[conversationpc]

So, no comments from the liberal gallery about the healthcare bill already having plans for increasing rates, waiting lists, etc., for folks currently unable to get insurance? Any comments about the President and his staffers being exempt from the bill?

[Lula]

only a minute here, dave, so i'll do what i can in response-

regarding the exemptions for hill staff- they already have a federal exchange pool and maybe it was to not complicate matters, but in time as the system is in place i expect those who qualify for the state individual exchanges to particiapte. obama has alreay stated he will participate if he is president in 2014, i suppose his state exchange would be illinois? unless the district has it's own?

for the high risk pool- waiting lists, premiums, and benefits contingent on funding..... not sure. again i take a wait and see stance. the law has to be in place and practiced for me to get a handle on the ins and outs. but as it stands- better to have some insurance in place rather than be denied anything which has been the staus quo.

[lights1961]

iam pretty much done with this debate as its law now... but my last statement on it...

I will say that the bill will cost a hell of a lot more than the 940 billion dollar estimate...it will triple in cost by 2014... the fine that they talk about being so little will also increas 5X by the time the program starts, to help pay for the increase... there WILL BE a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM by 2020... or earlier.

[conversationpc]

only a minute here, dave, so i'll do what i can in response-

regarding the exemptions for hill staff- they already have a federal exchange pool and maybe it was to not complicate matters, but in time as the system is in place i expect those who qualify for the state individual exchanges to particiapte. obama has alreay stated he will participate if he is president in 2014, i suppose his state exchange would be illinois? unless the district has it's own?

That's acceptable if that's the case but I'm doubting that's true.

for the high risk pool- waiting lists, premiums, and benefits contingent on funding..... not sure. again i take a wait and see stance. the law has to be in place and practiced for me to get a handle on the ins and outs. but as it stands- better to have some insurance in place rather than be denied anything which has been the staus quo.

But one of the main points, if not THE main point, was to get people with pre-existing conditions on the plan who could not otherwise get insurance. If you're already planning to increase premiums and boot these people to the back of the line then that doesn't give me much confidence that the plan is going to work.

[Lula]

regarding the exemptions for hill staff- they already have a federal exchange pool and maybe it was to not complicate matters, but in time as the system is in place i expect those who qualify for the state individual exchanges to particiapte. obama has alreay stated he will participate if he is president in 2014, i suppose his state exchange would be illinois? unless the district has it's own?

That's acceptable if that's the case but I'm doubting that's true.

i don't know what else to say. being doubtful can be one's nature i suppose. i really am waiting to make comments as i don't want to specualte too much in either direction.

[conversationpc]

regarding the exemptions for hill staff- they already have a federal exchange pool and maybe it was to not complicate matters, but in time as the system is in place i expect those who qualify for the state individual exchanges to particiapte. obama has alreay stated he will participate if he is president in 2014, i suppose his state exchange would be illinois? unless the district has it's own?

That's acceptable if that's the case but I'm doubting that's true.

i don't know what else to say. being doubtful can be one's nature i suppose. i really am waiting to make comments as i don't want to specualte too much in either direction.

I'm certainly skeptical of most things regarding politics anyway. It's served me well.

[Rockindeano]

All you people debating something that is already LAW, are amusing. Let me tell you, you are missing one of the best "Cash Cabs" ever. These 3 women are pulling answers out of their collective asses. Gotta go, there's a red light challenge.

[Lula]

for the high risk pool- waiting lists, premiums, and benefits contingent on funding..... not sure. again i take a wait and see stance. the law has to be in place and practiced for me to get a handle on the ins and outs. but as it stands- better to have some insurance in place rather than be denied anything which has been the staus quo.

But one of the main points, if not THE main point, was to get people with pre-existing conditions on the plan who could not otherwise get insurance. If you're already planning to increase premiums and boot these people to the back of the line then that doesn't give me much confidence that the plan is going to work.

oops forgot this one

so the main point being to prevent insurance companies form dropping or denying folks with pre existing conditions has been addressed. again speculation is just that, as is assuming before we know. the possibility of higher premiums or waiting for something is based on insufficient funds. i still contend that not being dropped because of, or denied coverage is a better position for a consumer with a pre existing condition.

[conversationpc]

so the main point being to prevent insurance companies form dropping or denying folks with pre existing conditions has been addressed. again speculation is just that, as is assuming before we know. the possibility of higher premiums or waiting for something is based on insufficient funds. i still contend that not being dropped because of, or denied coverage is a better position for a consumer with a pre existing condition.

There are already plans to implement higher premiums, waiting lists, etc. I would be very surprised if that doesn't happen knowing how poorly the government runs most things. There simply no way, unless we DRASTICALLY reduce our debt, spending, and printing of money, that they are going to be able to successfully fund this program. That won't happen because no one, on either side of the aisle, is willing to cut spending enough to do that because they are afraid that people will bitch and moan that their favorite programs are being slashed. Heck, the U.S. credit rating has a good chance of being lowered. If that happens, there will be MAJOR trouble for our economy because we likely will not even be able to pay the interest on our debt at that point.

[slucero]

Caterpillar, John Deere, Valero... $265 million dollar hit... now AT&T with a $1 Billion dollar hit... nice...

Wonder how many jobs this is gonna cost...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/market ... gislation/

AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation

AT&T (T: 26.2599, 0.0999, 0.38%) said Friday that tax ramifications related to the newly passed health-care legislation will force it to take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter.

In papers filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said the charge stems from changes in the tax laws regarding the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T will no longer be able to deduct tax-free subsidies it receives from the government for providing retirees prescription-drug benefits.

“AT&T Inc. intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change,” the company said.

Furthermore, AT&T said in the filing that, as a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, “AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”

President Barack Obama signed into law this week a sweeping health-care reform bill that requires companies of a certain size to provide coverage to their workers in an effort to provide coverage to some 30 million Americans without insurance.

Taxes on some companies are being raised to help defray the cost of the legislation.

Businesses organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have slammed the new law, arguing it will hurt companies by adding new costs and additional tax burdens.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co. (DE: 60.4499, 0.2399, 0.4%), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT: 62.35, 0.19, 0.31%) and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

[Rick]

Caterpillar, John Deere, Valero... $265 million dollar hit... now AT&T with a $1 Billion dollar hit... nice...

Wonder how many jobs this is gonna cost...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/market ... gislation/

AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation

AT&T (T: 26.2599, 0.0999, 0.38%) said Friday that tax ramifications related to the newly passed health-care legislation will force it to take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter.

In papers filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said the charge stems from changes in the tax laws regarding the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T will no longer be able to deduct tax-free subsidies it receives from the government for providing retirees prescription-drug benefits.

“AT&T Inc. intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change,” the company said.

Furthermore, AT&T said in the filing that, as a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, “AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”

President Barack Obama signed into law this week a sweeping health-care reform bill that requires companies of a certain size to provide coverage to their workers in an effort to provide coverage to some 30 million Americans without insurance.

Taxes on some companies are being raised to help defray the cost of the legislation.

Businesses organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have slammed the new law, arguing it will hurt companies by adding new costs and additional tax burdens.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co. (DE: 60.4499, 0.2399, 0.4%), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT: 62.35, 0.19, 0.31%) and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

Just a question here. Maybe I'm confused about this. Why should AT&T be able to deduct tax free subsidies? It boggles my mind they were able to to begin with.

[slucero]

Caterpillar, John Deere, Valero... $265 million dollar hit... now AT&T with a $1 Billion dollar hit... nice...

Wonder how many jobs this is gonna cost...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/market ... gislation/

AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation

AT&T (T: 26.2599, 0.0999, 0.38%) said Friday that tax ramifications related to the newly passed health-care legislation will force it to take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter.

In papers filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said the charge stems from changes in the tax laws regarding the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T will no longer be able to deduct tax-free subsidies it receives from the government for providing retirees prescription-drug benefits.

“AT&T Inc. intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change,” the company said.

Furthermore, AT&T said in the filing that, as a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, “AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”

President Barack Obama signed into law this week a sweeping health-care reform bill that requires companies of a certain size to provide coverage to their workers in an effort to provide coverage to some 30 million Americans without insurance.

Taxes on some companies are being raised to help defray the cost of the legislation.

Businesses organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have slammed the new law, arguing it will hurt companies by adding new costs and additional tax burdens.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co. (DE: 60.4499, 0.2399, 0.4%), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT: 62.35, 0.19, 0.31%) and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

Just a question here. Maybe I'm confused about this. Why should AT&T be able to deduct tax free subsidies? It boggles my mind they were able to to begin with.

Our Congress at work... lol!

[Lula]

looks like the loop holes are closing in on all those big corporate tax mysteries, evasions, whatever.... isn't that whole medicare part d stuff bad for the consumer?

[conversationpc]

Just a question here. Maybe I'm confused about this. Why should AT&T be able to deduct tax free subsidies? It boggles my mind they were able to to begin with.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me. They're getting subsidies from the federal government and they're allowed to take deductions on it.

[Lula]

here is some more info on this. sounds like a little double dipping perhaps?

By PAUL GORDON (pgordon@pjstar.com)
Journal Star
Posted Mar 26, 2010 @ 04:23 PM
PEORIA — Caterpillar Inc. and other large companies are being criticized by the Obama administration for reporting now that they will take millions of dollars in hits to their earnings because of one portion of the new health care legislation.

Caterpillar and Deere were accused of being “premature and irresponsible” by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke for saying a change to Medicare Part D laws would hurt their earnings in the present quarter.

Those companies are also being questioned about the amounts they are claiming — amounts that seem to get larger with every company that makes a report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about taking a one-time charge as a result of the legislation.

Caterpillar started it all by saying it would take a $100 million hit on its first quarter earnings. Deere & Co. followed with a report it would lose $150 million to its fiscal second quarter earnings.

The largest estimated hit yet, $1 billion, was announced Friday by AT&T.

At issue is what kind of hit corporate America will take because it is losing a tax deduction from Medicare Part D. Before, companies were paid subsidies of $1,330 a year, tax-free, for every retiree for whom it provided a prescription drug plan. Then, that amount could be deducted from the company’s taxes.

The new law still provides the subsidy tax free, but companies will no longer be able to deduct it from taxes.

Also on Friday the Wall Street Journal said in a published report that it calculates Caterpillar’s loss would be more like $7 million, based on the fact Caterpillar told the SEC it expected to receive about $20 million annually from the tax deduction and the 35 percent corporate tax rate that would now be applied to that deduction amount.

But Caterpillar on Friday defended itself, reiterating its belief it must, under accepted accounting rules and regulations, record any one-time tax charge in the quarter in which the legislation causing that charge is signed.

The $100 million, said Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan, “is our calculation of what that change in Medicare Part D will mean to the company.”

Dugan was pressed for further explanation of how the calculation was made, including whether the $100 million was an estimate of what the change will cost Caterpillar in perpetuity since it can only be charged once.

He said further details will be included in Caterpillar’s first quarter earnings report, which will be released April 26.

On the time of the filing, Dugan said, “We felt it was very appropriate and prudent to file the disclosure with the SEC immediately. We tend to take a conservative approach to SEC filings.”

Dugan declined to comment on the statement of Commerce Secretary Locke, which he made in a live interview Thursday on CNBC.

He also declined to say anything more about a telephone call made Thursday from the White House to Vice Chairman Doug Oberhelman, which Oberhelman revealed while speaking to the Morton Rotary Club later on Thursday.

While he acknowledged the call was regarding the health care legislation, Oberhelman would not say from it it came or what was said. He did describe the call as “productive.”

Paul Gordon can be reached at 686-3288 or pgordon@pjstar.com


Copyright 2010 pjstar.com. Some rights reserved

[conversationpc]

here is some more info on this. sounds like a little double dipping perhaps?

...At issue is what kind of hit corporate America will take because it is losing a tax deduction from Medicare Part D. Before, companies were paid subsidies of $1,330 a year, tax-free, for every retiree for whom it provided a prescription drug plan. Then, that amount could be deducted from the company’s taxes.

I don't support corporate welfare, so in the end, this is probably a good thing but I still think the economy and the job market are going to take a hit because of it.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.as ... spid=32364

[Rockindeano]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

Levin's a Constitutional lawyer who worked in the Reagan administration, this country needs every one of them we can, they rescued the sinking Carter ship.

[Rockindeano]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

Levin's a Constitutional lawyer who worked in the Reagan administration, this country needs every one of them we can, they rescued the sinking Carter ship.

He's a fucking right wing wacko...promoting books by Rove, Palin, Bennett, Morris and every other right wing nutjob. I don't care what the fuck he is, and as far as saving the country, what the fuck you think Obama is trying to do? YOUR guys put us under water! We are in the position we are in because of the republicans. Open your fuckin eyes.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

Levin's a Constitutional lawyer who worked in the Reagan administration, this country needs every one of them we can, they rescued the sinking Carter ship.

He's a fucking right wing wacko...promoting books by Rove, Palin, Bennett, Morris and every other right wing nutjob. I don't care what the fuck he is, and as far as saving the country, what the fuck you think Obama is trying to do? YOUR guys put us under water! We are in the position we are in because of the republicans. Open your fuckin eyes.

I think it's pretty apparent what he's trying to do. He's trying to run this train right off the tracks to rebuild it the way he wants. Look at the difference between him and Bush.
Obama was determined to force this disaster on the American people, and he did. Bush pushed for privatization of Social Security, when the majority of Americans opposed it, he dropped it and moved on. That's what your supposed to do. Republicans will win back the house and possibly the Senate, Obamacare will not be funded and Obama will be voted out in 2014 with Republicans solidifying the house and senate. It'll thankfully have the final stake driven through its heart then.

[Behshad]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

Levin's a Constitutional lawyer who worked in the Reagan administration, this country needs every one of them we can, they rescued the sinking Carter ship.

He's a fucking right wing wacko...promoting books by Rove, Palin, Bennett, Morris and every other right wing nutjob. I don't care what the fuck he is, and as far as saving the country, what the fuck you think Obama is trying to do? YOUR guys put us under water! We are in the position we are in because of the republicans. Open your fuckin eyes.

I think it's pretty apparent what he's trying to do. He's trying to run this train right off the tracks to rebuild it the way he wants. Look at the difference between him and Bush.
Obama was determined to force this disaster on the American people, and he did. Bush pushed for privatization of Social Security, when the majority of Americans opposed it, he dropped it and moved on. That's what your supposed to do. Republicans will win back the house and possibly the Senate, Obamacare will not be funded and Obama will be voted out in 2014 with Republicans solidifying the house and senate. It'll thankfully have the final stake driven through its heart then.

Yep. That's exactly what we need. Republcans taking over with Palin as the president.
and you're right. Bush ALWAYS listened to the PEOPLE. when the people said no to the war in Iraq , he did listen and didn't proceed with the war.
things do look a bit different than reality with your head in the sand RWF , eh ?!

[Rockindeano]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1748227&spid=32364

What a garbage website. You should feel ashamed you even posted this. Are you that blind as a follower to have to read sites such as this in order to "debate?" Jesus Christ.

Levin's a Constitutional lawyer who worked in the Reagan administration, this country needs every one of them we can, they rescued the sinking Carter ship.

He's a fucking right wing wacko...promoting books by Rove, Palin, Bennett, Morris and every other right wing nutjob. I don't care what the fuck he is, and as far as saving the country, what the fuck you think Obama is trying to do? YOUR guys put us under water! We are in the position we are in because of the republicans. Open your fuckin eyes.

I think it's pretty apparent what he's trying to do. He's trying to run this train right off the tracks to rebuild it the way he wants. Look at the difference between him and Bush.
Obama was determined to force this disaster on the American people, and he did. Bush pushed for privatization of Social Security, when the majority of Americans opposed it, he dropped it and moved on. That's what your supposed to do. Republicans will win back the house and possibly the Senate, Obamacare will not be funded and Obama will be voted out in 2014 with Republicans solidifying the house and senate. It'll thankfully have the final stake driven through its heart then.

Yep. That's exactly what we need. Republcans taking over with Palin as the president.
and you're right. Bush ALWAYS listened to the PEOPLE. when the people said no to the war in Iraq , he did listen and didn't proceed with the war.
things do look a bit different than reality with your head in the sand RWF , eh ?!

Bush had a 74% approval rating heading into Iraq, that was the reality.

LOL, you want me to put that rating into context or do you want to play stupid? The choice is yours. You are just flat out fucking stupid dude. There's no other way to say it. Just a stupid fucker.

[Rockindeano]

Enlighten me oh wise one.

Dipshit, Bush had a 74% rating(I'll take your word for it), going into war because we had just been attacked. ANY president would have high ratings had we just been attacked. The country wraps itself up in the flag and gets really patriotic.

Besides, I don't give a rats ass what his ratings were then, what were they when he left office? 28%?

If you want stupid yet correct comparisons, Obama has a higher approval rating than Reagan did at this time in Ronnie's first term. Does that mean Obie is a better president?"

[Behshad]

An early January 2003 poll showed rapidly decreasing support for an invasion, although there was still more public support than there was prior to the Gulf War a decade before.[citation needed] Much of this appeared to be for the same reason that France and Germany opposed the war; namely the US public believing that the weapons inspectors should be given the time they need to complete their investigations.[citation needed] US officials downplayed this shift in public opinion, claiming that it was not a true reflection of the public mood.[citation needed]

A poll conducted at the time by The New York Times and CBS News released showed even less support for the US-led war.[citation needed] Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. Interestingly, this same poll showed that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but did not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicated a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action.