80 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
I want to make sure I have the facts straight
1. Barack Obama ran for and won the presidency in 2008, with the ACA a centerpiece of his campaign. People who opposed it could have gotten out the vote for McCain but apparently did not.
2. The Affordable Care Act was passed, and signed into law in March 2010.
3. Congress has tried, and failed, 43 times to get that law repealed.
4. In June, 2012 the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge as to the constitutionality of the law.
5. The timetables for implementation of the various parts of the reform package were laid out before the bill was voted on.
6. The Republicans, who lost that vote, are now trying to derail funding for the law they lost that vote on, and are threatening to shut down the federal government if they don't get their way.
Sums it up pretty well, no?
Every day he has to be the star?
Every day he has to give some speech on TV now? Fireside chats for the evenings coming next? The fad of Obama is growing thin and tired.
He's the president
It's not his fault a minority in Congress is trying to hold the federal government hostage over a vote they lost three years ago.
And you keep forgetting
conveniently that the law that was passed is not the law that is now in existence because BO took it upon himself to alter it with waivers and delays WITHOUT taking that to Congress which is where it was supposed to be. HE alone changed the law......and has absolutely refused to allow Republicans from the very beginning four years ago to have any part in it and continues to do so.
BTW....do YOU have a problem with demanding that Congress AND the President having to ALSO comply with that law or is it okay with you that he single-handedly carved them all out a month or so ago? Because the House is sending over another bill to the Senate tonight that requires them to comply....and Reid has already said he won't accept it. What does that tell you about Democrats and those who are up for re-election, Josh? Are they or are they not the ones who believe they are above the laws they write?
As for the online exchanges.....BO said tonight that 'millions' will sign up starting tomorrow (they have until March to do so)..........do you honestly believe that millions of young people will sign up when they can pay a small fine instead?
congress salaries and expense accounts should be the first
to be suspended.
Replace their dining room with cart sandwiches.
Replace all of them the next election.
In 1995 Congressmen and Senators announced they
would forgo their salaries for the length of time of the disagreement. Suddenly, since Reagan, (not because of him in any way) this idiocy has become the norm. There have been 17 different confrontations like this, with stoppages ranging from nil, to a couple of days, to 21 days in 1995.
This is no way to run a country. So far as I have been able to assess, all the instances of obstruction over budgetary issues defunding the government and of raising the debt ceiling have been initiated by the Republicans. This does no one any good, and doesn't help the government, particularly in its borrowing arrangements. The Republicans managed to cause American bonds to be downgraded from Triple A to Double incurring extra costs of borrowing. This isn't good for anyone except the bond holders, who by and large aren't Americans.
they are just cutting up the credit cards
all the porkers want to keep overspending with. Yeah, austerity hurts for a bit, but the end result is economic healing and restoration of reasonable budgets. The same thing that works for a family extended on credit will work for the govt.
yeah, cutting right
since 86% of the government goes on, all the cuts are in the other 14%
national parks, seashores, monuments
tax refund, but you still have to pay owed taxes
and don't forget, Congress is not defunded, their pay and expense accounts roll merrily on
and the lobbyists double down on what they spend/give/bribe congress with.
I actually agree.....
......that the Congressional and Executive subsidies should go. I have to pay towards my insurance; they can do it too.
I say we drop the subsidies and fund the program.
Even a minority constituency
deserve representation. Isn't that what civil rights was supposed to be about? Ever here "no taxation WITHOUT representation"? Why do you think they advocated "representation"? It was so they could have someone there to stand up for their side, strongly when necessary. Seems they understand this better than you currently do.
representation doesn't promise being in charge
They have representation. They just don't have a majority. That's the part they don't seem to understand.
that's why we used to have "states"
Didn't like the state you lived in, move to another, each had it's own laws and the federal govt was limited. Now it's completely turned around with oppressive central govt trying to mandate everything, even coming into the doctor-patient confidentiality. This govt has no sense of shame anymore, just the shame.
back to the idea of sovereign states
with only a mutual defense pact?
and ID checks at every border I suppose.
permits and credentials (contractors for example) no good faith and trust.
do you remember that happening before? Only during the war perhaps.
don't forget even if the government shuts down
Obamacare is already "funded" and goes on into effect while the FDA stops inspections, federal home loans approval processes stop, background checks for new gun permits stop, new student loans approval are delayed, some employees ( like border guards) continue to work but may have their checks delayed...........
If you can repeal the law with a vote, that's the way it's should be done.
Trying to cause pain and blaming Obamacare will rebound.
don't blame the victims
Instead, blame the tyrants!
wonder which side you intend with that description?
I blame all of them.
You missed one. The 2012 election was fought essentially as
a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, by both sides. The Democrats campaigned for the issue and Obama tied his campaign to it, and the Republicans, and Mitt Romney campaigned loudly and vigorously for its repeal. Obama won the popular vote by a substantial margin. Certainly Republicans achieved a diminished majority in Congress, but in votes cast, votes for Democrats exceeded those for Republicans. The only reason the Republicans won more seats is the unequal sizes of the Congressional districts, and the Gerrymandering being done by Republicans at the state level.
I'd like to see national legislation mandating equal Congressional districts. I'm sure that you could punch the number of Congressional seats into a computer and have it draw equal districts. i think it needs to be removed from partisan politics.
Districts are redrawn
every ten years or so based on the census, Rob.......the more people who live in an area, the more unbalanced the districts get. So if you get many who are forced economically to move into a low income area, that district all of a sudden surges while another neighborhood has boards across the windows because of financial circumstances. And we all recognize that the poorer a person is the more likely they are going to vote Dem because liberals in Congress will keep giving them goodies. Your theory that Reps won the Congress again in 2012 because of district gerrymandering is actually backwards........the Dems picked up the seats they needed in the Senate to keep holding it because of the poorer neighborhoods being redistricted in their favor. If I recall, there were far more Dems that got their districts enlarged than Reps last time around, with some districts disappearing completely by merging. I think that's how Dennis K (a Dem from Ohio) decided to retire...his district was merged into another Dems' district and done away with completely. His only other option was to actually move to another location in order to run again....and there were more Reps in that same position than Dems.
Even with the gerrymandering....
......Obama still won reelection despite the fact that his opponent said his top priority would be to repeal the ACA.
This is nothing more than an angry minority in Congress trying to force the majority's hand. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work.
Democracy is a joke to this president
He went against Constitutional law by arbitrarily waiving his own signature law for his special interests, his Congress and Cabinet, and large businesses. Those decisions and changes can only be made by Congress and he made them irrelevant again. His ego is dictating our lives because he believes he is king.
Surely not a king.
In all countries I know of a king (or queen) mostly has a ceremonial task, no power at all. They symbolize the unity of the nation. Two very good reasons why not to call Obama a king: the consitution gives him executive power, andsomehow I don't get the impression he divides the nation more than uniting it.
Maybe you mean "dictator" or "tyrant"? However, I don't think BO would describe himself as such. But some other people might do.
The only people who see him as a "tyrant".....
.....are those who voted for the other candidate and lost.
Toni's post, just like the shutdown itself, is nothing more than sour grapes.
Let's see how many more
than the 60+% currently of the country who don't want Obamacare will be begging to be free of it soon, Josh........that's not sour grapes.....this is what you get when you are pressed into 'you have to pass it to see what's in it' when it affects more than 18% of the entire budget (it started off at only 6% and escalated quickly because the numbers were whacked/lied about to begin with).
Do you remember the 'truth in lending laws' that were implemented in order to protect consumers? ALL loan documents had to fully disclose so that people knew what they were getting into........and yet
Obamacare was passed by ONLY Democrat votes without even ONE person knowing what they were voting for.....and the only sane people in the country who voted against it were conservatives and Republicans and Independents who actually KNEW better than to cross that shaky plank.
To deliberately destroy this country on this economic farse because of a personal liberal agenda is treasonous.......no matter how many ways you try to 'convict' Republicans, the guilty ones are the ones who voted for this and our 'esteemed' and incompetent leader.
Those Democrats had a majority, Toni
Where were those 60% of the people during last year's election, Toni?
And you might want to look up the definition of "treason." You're not even close to having that right.
1. An act of deliberate betrayal
2. Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. A crime that undermines the offender's government
I got it right on the money, Josh....what would be YOUR definition?
During the last election, disapproval for Obamacare was much lower....as this year has unveiled the waivers and carve outs for select favorite groups of this administration, that disapproval rate has climbed rapidly.
Yes, the Dems had the majority at the time of the vote.....however, many of their own were against voting for it and had to be bribed, threatened, and lied to in order to get their votes....and quite a few were ready to accept the last two deals that the House offered last night, and actually voted with the Republicans, but Reid tabled it and wouldn't allow Senate members to vote on it. That's a dictatorship, not leadership......that's called FEAR if you want to be honest, Josh.
Put up a list of the foreign governments Obama is working in league with to destroy the United States, using the ACA as the means of destruction. Then you can use that word.
It's not my definition vs. yours. It's THE definition.
I'm pretty sure you were claiming "the majority don't want Obamacare" before last year's election.
Perhaps you can detail what specific purpose there is in delaying the provisions in question, what the danger is in allowing them to take effect on schedule, and what Congress plans to do during that delay period to try to address those issues, other than taking another 43 votes to try to repeal the ACA.
So, in your opinion
The dictionary definition that I found is wrong, even though it is Webster's dictionary and only your Wikipedia dictionary has THE correct and true meanings? OK (Oh, by the way, any economical fall of this country due to his agendas WOULD work to help our enemies.....or don't you agree that OUR financial ruin would do that?)
I was not claiming that the 'majority who don't want Obamacare" was before the last election, even though that IS a fact...but it was closer to the 50-51% range and was ignored.......now it is well over the 60% range.
As for what Congress plans to do, you are assuming both houses would agree on a plan.....However, that aside, I believe I know what the HOUSE will do. They will do exactly what they did with the Military vote last night that got Reid's Senate to agree to. They passed a bill that BO signed that pays the Military even in the event of a government shut-down. I believe that the House will continue along that vein and go through the Appropriations Bill one item at a time, separately, and pass each one that will continue to fund the government without a CR involved at all....the Senate will continue to pass them, one at a time, BO will sign them, and the government will be funded over a matter of days. I also suspect that Obamacare will be left to be the last one to fund and the House will ignore it.
That strategy is exactly what happened during the Clinton shut-down and it worked.
I just checked Webster's online....
.....and the definition you posted is not what they have:
I did not use Wikipedia. I used the Free Legal Dictionary.
If "economical fall of this country due to his agendas" is treason, then someone should go arrest the man who was running the country when the economy actually did collapse.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)