Your dilemma is EXACTLY why there is so much angst about in the land–it’s almost impossible for an individual citizen such as yourself to get bottom-line, accurate facts on almost ANYTHING anymore, and increasingly experience has caused us to distrust the motives of those supposedly elected to do the heavy lifting on our behalf to tell us the truth–leaving us all stranded in a “Twilight Zone” of uncertaincy, unable to properly discern on our own if there indeed exists a “problem” or not about ANY given course of proposed public policy. Ultimately, imho, this is the beginning of a long slide into the loss of legitimacy for government and potentially fatal for the Republic in the long run, however the Health-Care debate comes out.

I’m coming back to this way late but I was posting from work and got busy. I think you assume I was being sarcastic or trying to twist numbers. I wasn’t. I read that same link you added to your post, the one to the CBO blog. And I looked it up because I wasn’t kidding about news sources.

But back to the CBO numbers. They DO say $65 billion on the blog page. You’re right in that I didn’t see where the CBO’s numbers were coming from, but then that’s just more disappointing, because I thought I could trust the CBO. It’s the CBO, for God’s sake! In fact, had you not pointed it out, I would have had no idea what the significance was of their source. So, once again, same problem. Where do I go for the ground truth? And to be fair, I DID say “if I’m reading this right.”

There’s a URL here to the Hannity comment, by the way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539444,00.html

And he’s not the only one saying it. So are you saying a cost of $1 trillion to the taxpayers is going to be the true cost? Because that’s the number that’s hammered home repeatedly. Is that an objective statement from all the media outlets that are repeating it? You yourself came to a figure of $239 billion, so why is the $1 trillion number being mentioned so often?

But the main reason I’m responding to your post, Prowler, is because I honestly don’t feel like I’m getting the objective truth from either side, and I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle.

I’m not trying to “paint a picture.” I’m honestly trying to see the real picture. This seems extremely important to me, and I still don’t know what I need to know.

Ain’t that some sage advice. I concur, strongly. That knucklehead was in the crosshairs from a high spot the entire time. I ain’t talking metaphorically here either. Stupid.

Secret Service. We’re talking tip of the SWAT team pyramid. They do what they want. Hi-tec praetorian guards with obsessive-compulsive tendencies.

Not a force to mess with.

re “understandably on edge and teh crazies on the prowl”

What about all those years of stilt-puppet A-holes, Alinsky-ites, Panthers and enviro-terrorists we’ve suffered through along with run of the mill, Islamo-whack-jobs. Equal loons, equal treatment, I say.

b2

And the really scary part is that most of these staffs are, though very bright products of our finest schools, (supposedly) very few have ever lived in the real world, having gone straight from grad school and their MBA, JDs, etc to the committee system in Congress. One study I saw back in 1982 pub. in Newsweek showed the avg age of those on the key tax-writing committees, for example, to be age 26.
The vast majority not only had never held a job outside of Congress, they owned practically NO assets–stocks, bonds, annuities, cash-value life insurance, or even a home and mortgage–their car being their largest and only “asset” for the most part. Point being? These types are almost totally detached from life in the real world as most American’s experience it, and thus a great many of the details of the legislation they write, while grounded in good theory, often bears no relationship to how things work in the real world. Probably be a better system if only qualified retirees who have lived a long time in the real world should work as staffers on such key legislation. (I know, I know, but….)

HA! They had to BUILD one years ago in Audubon Park (Monkey Hill) just to let kids know what one looks like! Then we have to our eternal glory MT. DRISCOLL (Ta Daaa!!) tucked away up in the NE corner of LA. The highest pt. in the State, It’s all of a “majestically towering” and/or “highly imposing” 520′ tall! Take THAT! you jealous bastards!