This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Two Moons on 30 September 2013 - 14:09
Why is it every time the government says it's shutting down it's from the bottom up?
by Carlin on 30 September 2013 - 23:09
This is just disgusting. Republicans risking a partial shutdown in order to push their agenda, and O'bammer acting as though they have no business taking exception to socialized medicine in the USA. "Brinkmanship"; really, I mean really Barack? It gets better in two weeks, when they start to throw their little tantrums over the debt ceiling. I get it GOP, you don't like the way things are going -me neither. Problem is, you ought not scuttle the ship just because you don't get your way. Freakin socialist Dem senators are just as bad, refusing dialogue on the House bill beforehand.
by Two Moons on 30 September 2013 - 23:09
Scuttle?
Hell no, I wanna burn it all down.
Hell no, I wanna burn it all down.
by Carlin on 30 September 2013 - 23:09
lol. We'll not be so fortunate. They prefer a controlled burn.
by Two Moons on 01 October 2013 - 00:10
I'd go for that, as long as the people control said burn.
No one on capitol hill will see any delays in their paychecks, a good place to start.
And Obamacare?
If someone couldn't afford insurance yesterday, what changed, how will they afford it tomorrow?
And if they can't afford the insurance, how in the hell are they supposed to be able to pay the fine?
And then there is the debt ceiling coming up again.
We'd survive a wild fire even though the rats would need a new house.
No one on capitol hill will see any delays in their paychecks, a good place to start.
And Obamacare?
If someone couldn't afford insurance yesterday, what changed, how will they afford it tomorrow?
And if they can't afford the insurance, how in the hell are they supposed to be able to pay the fine?
And then there is the debt ceiling coming up again.
We'd survive a wild fire even though the rats would need a new house.
by Two Moons on 01 October 2013 - 23:10
All the Gamies are off work so tomorrow I'm going fishin....lol
by Carlin on 02 October 2013 - 00:10
I'm not a big fan of the GOP holding the budget hostage, but this is the rationale, and the legal basis for rolling back Obamacare:
Answer to "Its the law of the land".
(1) The "Law" was passed in way that NO other major legislation has EVER been "passed". It was ramrodded through by a process known as "reconciliation" - a budget process that automatically "passes" when a budget bill is passed from the House to the Senate after key amendments are made (without it having to go back to the House for a re-vote).
(2) It was "passed" at time when the Democrats controlled both the House AND the Senate. No Republican voted for it. When the Republicans regained control of the House, they exerted what limited "control" they had, primarily through the budget process.
(3) According to the U.S. Constitution, ALL revenue bills must originate in the House of representatives. The "Law of the Land" is that Every Budget cycle, every federal program (laws) are subject to being revisited as to their relevance and usefulness. This is as it SHOULD be. Otherwise, any law that is EVER passed, by either party, would ALWAYS be the law and would ALWAYS required funding, regardless of who is in control, or whether the program is worthy of being funded. This is a legitimate part of the internal checks and balances designed into our system. It is the president and the Democrats that are the lawbreakers.
(4) The National Healthcare Law (Affordable Healthcare, or Obmamcare) was passed as a mechanism to force people to buy insurance or else pay a fine. When it went to the Supreme Court, they tried to argue that a "fine" for non-compliance was constitutional. The court said it was not, but if it was a "tax" instead of a "fine" then it would be "constitutional". SO then, it was argued that it was a "tax". (head-shaking)
(5) Even though it is not even fully implemented, it has already had a destructive impact on employment, jobs, income, and health care. People have lost jobs or had hours cut to avoid participation. Congressmen, large corporations, and political friends of this administration, have applied for, and received waivers, or exemptions, effectively removing them from the bad effects of the law they imposed on the rest of us. Supposedly it cause 30 million "new" clients for health insurance that were not heretofore insurable. On the other hand, it appears that 30 million other people, who WERE insured, will now no longer be able to be insured and will have to pay the "fine" (tax).
(6)When people argue that it is the law of the land because (a) it was voted by the people, vicariously, by re-electing Obama, and that (b) it is "constitutional" because the Supreme Court said it was, and (c) that it will be self-sustaining and will have no negative impact on our economy, are not thinking this thing through. It is not "fair", nor is it "affordable" to a large number of people, nor does it fulfill most of the "promises" of the administration, nor can it reasonably EVER have a chance of succeeding as long as it adds people to the system without expanding the services and providers in the system.
I could go on but this will keep your conversations going if you can get a liberal to sit still long enough to listen to this "reason". Note their objections. See if they address the issues, or if they simply make counter-assertions. This is a public service.
- Dr. John Sterling
Answer to "Its the law of the land".
(1) The "Law" was passed in way that NO other major legislation has EVER been "passed". It was ramrodded through by a process known as "reconciliation" - a budget process that automatically "passes" when a budget bill is passed from the House to the Senate after key amendments are made (without it having to go back to the House for a re-vote).
(2) It was "passed" at time when the Democrats controlled both the House AND the Senate. No Republican voted for it. When the Republicans regained control of the House, they exerted what limited "control" they had, primarily through the budget process.
(3) According to the U.S. Constitution, ALL revenue bills must originate in the House of representatives. The "Law of the Land" is that Every Budget cycle, every federal program (laws) are subject to being revisited as to their relevance and usefulness. This is as it SHOULD be. Otherwise, any law that is EVER passed, by either party, would ALWAYS be the law and would ALWAYS required funding, regardless of who is in control, or whether the program is worthy of being funded. This is a legitimate part of the internal checks and balances designed into our system. It is the president and the Democrats that are the lawbreakers.
(4) The National Healthcare Law (Affordable Healthcare, or Obmamcare) was passed as a mechanism to force people to buy insurance or else pay a fine. When it went to the Supreme Court, they tried to argue that a "fine" for non-compliance was constitutional. The court said it was not, but if it was a "tax" instead of a "fine" then it would be "constitutional". SO then, it was argued that it was a "tax". (head-shaking)
(5) Even though it is not even fully implemented, it has already had a destructive impact on employment, jobs, income, and health care. People have lost jobs or had hours cut to avoid participation. Congressmen, large corporations, and political friends of this administration, have applied for, and received waivers, or exemptions, effectively removing them from the bad effects of the law they imposed on the rest of us. Supposedly it cause 30 million "new" clients for health insurance that were not heretofore insurable. On the other hand, it appears that 30 million other people, who WERE insured, will now no longer be able to be insured and will have to pay the "fine" (tax).
(6)When people argue that it is the law of the land because (a) it was voted by the people, vicariously, by re-electing Obama, and that (b) it is "constitutional" because the Supreme Court said it was, and (c) that it will be self-sustaining and will have no negative impact on our economy, are not thinking this thing through. It is not "fair", nor is it "affordable" to a large number of people, nor does it fulfill most of the "promises" of the administration, nor can it reasonably EVER have a chance of succeeding as long as it adds people to the system without expanding the services and providers in the system.
I could go on but this will keep your conversations going if you can get a liberal to sit still long enough to listen to this "reason". Note their objections. See if they address the issues, or if they simply make counter-assertions. This is a public service.
- Dr. John Sterling
by Two Moons on 02 October 2013 - 01:10
I'm still going fishing....
by Two Moons on 02 October 2013 - 14:10
My fishing trip is getting rained out !!!!!!
by Carlin on 02 October 2013 - 15:10
You may have all of next year the way things are going.
CNN - It's the GOP House who is to blame.
FOXNews - Obama - "blah blah blah REPUBLICAN shutdown"
The evidence is staring us in the face that our elected officials have zero interest in our nation beyond politicizing everything, at any cost. It's is really difficult for me to visualize a path which leads from here, to some sort of meaningful reparation of the process. A sad day.
CNN - It's the GOP House who is to blame.
FOXNews - Obama - "blah blah blah REPUBLICAN shutdown"
The evidence is staring us in the face that our elected officials have zero interest in our nation beyond politicizing everything, at any cost. It's is really difficult for me to visualize a path which leads from here, to some sort of meaningful reparation of the process. A sad day.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top