Is the Tea Party the new Death Panel?
Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. What's more, they say that not passing a federal budget by the Oct. 1 deadline will cut government back to the levels imagined by the founding fathers.
That's a lot to think about. Not paying for the federal portion of hospital care will mean no operations.
Not paying for the 16 security services will mean that jihadists will be free to kill at will. Not paying for prisons will mean chaos.
This list could go on. But the point to question is still the same: Is the Tea Party the new Death Panel?So you mean you won't voluntarily give to hospitals, security services and prisons to help keep them running? That's pretty nasty, man.
On another note - who the hell needs 16 security services anyway?? Simply encourage voluntary neighbourhood security forces and people will contribute as what they feel appropriate.You have to ask who will have the money to give to hospitals for their services and as far as neighborhood security forces how many George Zimmerman's can we take out there?
With no IRS, nobody's going to come arrest you if you keep all of your money, or give it where you feel appropriate. I don't understand your second question.
Do you have actual quotes from tea party members saying that or are you just repeating accusations from left wing outlets? Specifically I would like to know who said, "it'll teach America who really is in charge"
That was a quote from a college-educated, Tea Party supporter who hopes the government shuts down on Monday.
That might be true, but you have to remember that the GOP members were voted into office by constituents that badly want to see the ACA defunded.
It's a foolish politician that runs on one platform and then switches to the other side - just to get along.
They are not going to defund Obamacare - it's going to fall all on its own accord.The government won't shut down. It's all a bunch of hooey designed to make us think they're actually doing something.Actually, I'd bet you don't even know what Obamacare does. Only 1 in 5 Americans do--that it supports families in buying private health insurance when they lose their jobs, etc. And 80% of all Americans won't be affected by it at first, except that it has forced companies to lower their health insurance premiums because of the new competition. And yes, in Fox News Land you'll hear the opposite.
Well, it appears you believe you are one of the the one in five's that do know the details. If so, perhaps a little more information might help your understanding.
Rather than try to correct you misstatements individually, allow me to point you to a very recent Forbes article that does address most of them. I believe Forbes is a generally credible source, and this particular article is supported by, and uses data from a while bunch of reputable acronym organizations - including Obama's own HHS.
Unfortunately, for one of us, it appears to contradict almost your entire post.
I am not one of the one-in-fives that claim to understand the details. Actually, the more I try to find out, the more conflicting the explanations become. It usually comes down to evaluating the source.
I think this Forbes article is fairly trustworthy. Why don't you check it out and see if you do too. Or, at least you will know what Forbes details to debunk.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/
GA
So it's just some dude you know that said it. Interesting.
But you said/inferred it was a House member.....
"Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. "
But now the quote came from a Tea Party supporter instead? And my goodness, are you giving that quote source more weight because it was "college educated?"
GA
By using these scare tactics, the GOP are effectively giving up reason and are sending the message that it's acceptable to terrorize society to achieve something, if you cannot win the political argument. Is that really the best message to be sending?
It also undermines the democratic process. The ACA has been passed by all branches of government, (being upheld by the Supreme Court), and was one of the issues voted on in the 2012 election which the President won. Don't like it? Want to repeal it? No problem. All the GOP have to do is convince us they have a better alternative. By stamping their feet and holding their breath until they turn red, the GOP are only convincing us of one thing: they are not fit to govern.Those are some pretty broad statements, and taken as broad blanket declarations, there are some problems.
First, Although I see you corrected this misstatement in a later post; there is no federal budget to be passed by Oct. 1 - Obama has not presented a federal budget for passage since he took office. It is - as you corrected, a Continuing Resolution to increase the nation's credit limit that must be passed.
And as for you closure effects:
1) Federal prison personnel will not be affected. Federal prisons will operate as normal.
2) of the security services - they too will remain fully functional, only non-essential personnel, (office/clerical/maintenance etc.) will be furloughed. So no, I don't think the jihadists will be any more free to kill than when the government is running.
3) But, metaphorically speaking, you may be right about the Tea Party being "the new death panel" except it may be the death of extreme liberal initiatives and their constitutional circumnavigations that they preside over.
oops, almost forgot, non-elective hospital services will also continue as normal. The closure would only effect the time of federal payments.
I considered providing links to support my corrections, but I found them all with another of those famous "20 minute Google searches" - so it would probably benefit you more if you found them yourself.
As another poster mentioned farther down, the "tea party activists" as you describe them are actually doing what their constituents elected them to do. As you are probably aware, the Senate is comprised of representatives for each state, elected to represent their state, whereas the House is comprised of representatives of specific election districts - elected to represent a specific group of citizens.
So it appears, you are denigrating them for doing what they were elected to do - rather than to just "go along to get along"
GA
My hope is that if the government shuts down, that when they try and start it up again they've found that they've forgotten how, and therefore have to keep it shut forever.
Yes! Then Mexicans will be free to come and go at the borders; you and I will be free to rob banks, and we'll get all the 50 Cal. automatics we want. And the kids won't have to go to school so they can shoot people right along with us.
What's so scary about the Mexicans coming? There's no welfare due to the government shut down so you won't have to pay for them if you don't want to. Do you just not like Mexicans? You're saying the only thing stopping you from robbing a bank is government? You don't regulate your own behaviour? You won't send your children to school?
Odd.Oh I see now. Obviously this statement makes it clear you just started this thread to rant. That's fine. I just misunderstood, I thought you were talking about the real world. I'm sorry I butted in with facts that are not needed.
GAThe point is that by holding the absolutist position of not negotiating with the Democrats about the future of Americans' health insurance, the Tea Party backs the policy of letting people go bankrupt over health care and using the emergency rooms as their primary care provider (and dying). I just wondered who, if anyone, here really cared one iota about it. I see that my question has been answered.
But I guarantee you that the one quarter of the population of Texas without health insurance will be happily hellacious when the heath insurance exchanges open on Tuesday, allowing them to buy insurance.
Take Note: "The Department of Health and Human Services has released a new report indicating that Texas consumers will see increased competition with the Health Insurance Marketplace — and premiums that cost less than originally anticipated. According to the report, Texas consumers will have the opportunity to choose from an average of 54 health plans in the Marketplace. Those plans will be categorized as either “gold,” “silver” or “bronze.” Young adults will also have the option of purchasing a “catastrophic” plan, increasing their number of choices."
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/b … miums.htmlOnce again, let me point you to the same Forbes article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/
One of the clues indicating "spin" in your link article is explained in the Forbes report. which discusses in length the 15 page HHS report that your article references.
And what is that clue? The HHS report bases all comparison claims on their earliest "projected" premium costs - not real life "actual" premium costs.
The Forbes article does a much better job of explaining this than I can - so go have a look. Who knows, maybe you'll decide that the San Antonio Business Journal has a much more credible interpretation of the HHS report than Forbes did. (and all its supporting acronym orgs.). Especially since it is saying what you want to hear.
ps. you might also stumble across the mention, re. that 25% Texas coverees (I know - not a real word) may have something to do with ACA's expansion of the Medicaid (free health ins.) program coverage.
Oh, well. Enough for now.
GA
Illegal aliens are already free to come and go, and they already do. The flood has already happened and has been happening since the possibility of immunity began being seriously discussed.
The vast majority of school funding comes from the states, so you likely won't see many if any schools shut.
Police forces receive the vast majority of their funding from a local level, so you likely won't see many if any police stations shut.I guess, then, it'll be a party. But .... almost all educational institutes are supported by federal funding. And the matter at hand, health care, the U.S. government already pays 50% of the funding (for training physicians, etc.). So let's party down.
Don't you think it's interesting the more progressives want the shutdown than Tea Party conservatives. That's because the progressives believe that the Republican Party is going to take the heat, especially with the excellent health care exchanges opening with lower priced policies? (lifted from meet the press, Aug. 29)Only the federal government would waste money on a party when there is a pending shutdown.
Look, I'm a conservative, and I don't support a shutdown. Still, some people are getting a bit dramatic; others are giving poor examples of how a shutdown would really impact services. My school receives a whopping 6% of its funding from the federal government. We're certainly not going to throw a party if there is a temporary loss of funds, but our doors won't be shutting.
Because screw wounded veterans and people who need firefighters. There fault for being a soldier and having a house.
Shutting the government down (at least to some extent) seems to be the new political terrorism practiced in the US. By all sides, and without care as to gets hurt when the children in Wash. play their silly game.
And it will continue until the American people say, in a loud voice, "ENOUGH!" and boot the scumbags out in favor of hiring someone willing to actually run the country.What is surprising is that those who want to shrink government already won. There's hardly been any new hiring since Obama came to office. And the states have laid off 200,000 civil servants, many of them teachers and police.
Let me apologize again for inserting facts into a rant, but, since you list specific figures - you should at least use the correct ones.
From the end of Bush's last year, through 2011, the number of federal employees increased by 267,885, or 14.4% (Bush is responsible for 4.1% of that)
Even with the numerous federal department and agency hiring freezes - that's still over a quarter-million new federal jobs.
a Politifacts "fact check" of a John Boehner statement came up with a figure of 107, 057 new federal jobs filled in 2009 & 2010 alone.
Once again, this info came from a very quick Google search, which you should do yourself if you think I am wrong. But I'll give you a clue - the first info comes from the fed's Office of Personnel Management, and the fed's Bureau of labor Statistics.
So it appears that the federal government hasn't been doing the shrinking you think it has.
As for the 200,000 state reductions, hmmm, after seeing the error of your first statement, I stopped looking after the Federal part.
GA"As Krugman quickly pointed out on his blog, the answer is “less.” Now, perhaps Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did tick up just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently. But add in state and local government jobs, and the hard number for government employment dropped by around 600,000 after Bush left office." http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 … der-obama/
Ahh, I see. The context of your post was Obamacare and the federal government. But now you are saying. "well, I really meant ALL government."
Well, then how does that relate to your condemnations of the House representatives? After all they are in the federal government. Did you mean you meant the legislative Tea Party activists in the state legislatures also?
Wait, now you have lost me.... how do they come into the government shutdown picture?
ps. thinkprogress.com is your source? Now , there is a trustworthy and unbiased or agenda driven source if I ever saw one. Just to be safe, maybe you should look around a little more
GA
GA
This is the 18 time the government has shut down in 40 years.
I know, hunh?
It seemed to be a regular occurrence in the '70s and '80s.
But after the 1996 shutdown.... long hiatus.
Hmmmmm.
- alexsaez1983posted 11 years ago
0I don't think any Tea Party members literally said that, and that's a pretty weak way to counter. It's like saying the Holocaust never happened because Hitler didn't say "I'm going to start the Holocaust". He did, however, make many statements to that effect, and I think that's what the Tea Party has done. Their hatred for Obama is more important to them than the American people they claim to serve, and that's where their "we're the ones with the power" idea comes from.
They're so spoiled, arrogant and bratty that they'd rather shut the country down than make a few compromises. It seems they can't just accept loss when it happens. First it was Obama's birth certificate, then then idiotic comments about him being a socialist/fascist/Muslim/atheist/communist. Give it a rest already, conservatives, and start trying to actually do what you so often claim to want: help the country.It is interesting that you believe the president's accusations against the republicans wanting to shut down the government when he is the one who refuses to budge on anything. He is the one who wants full implementation of Obamacare without compromise. Even after his own supporters have described it as a "train wreck" and according to James Hoffa, president of the teamsters union, it is "a nightmare" that will break the 40 hour work week.
This president's polarizing capabilities have fewer limits than a Democrat controlled Senate. Everyone in his cabinet is a hard left extremist, he surrounds himself with hard left extremists, he went to school with hard left extremists, he was taught by hard left extremists, he was raised by hard left extremists. He eats it, breaths it, and sleeps it, and when he doesn't get his way he runs and cries to his slobbering media elitist buddies who unceasingly coddle and defend his slurry of failed policies.
Actually, Obama is a moderate when it comes to many things. If he were this radical lefty you talk about, he'd laugh at the people who want to stop paying America's debts. Then, he use an executive order to force payment. And shortly the Supreme Court would agree with him because it's in the Constitution that America will not default on it's debts.
With regards to the CR, the budget resolution that keeps the government open after Monday, if Obama were a radical, he shut down Congress by refusing to pay for it. And then use the remaining income to pay for non budget bills, like Social Security and Medicare.
As an aside, do you realize the hate Obama folks are spending $500 million to advertise lies about the Affordable Care Act?A moderate who supports, OWS, the Arab Spring, socialized medicine, the Muslim brotherhood, considered giving aid to Al Qaeda in Syria, sold out Poland's missile defense shield to Russia, gave Russia the serial numbers to trident missiles sold to Great Britain, sold F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, doubled the national debt, he's pro abortion, pro Keynesian economics, spent 30 years attending a racist church, the only US. president who has officially lived under no less than three aliases. His cabinet members lied to the public about Benghazi, covered up fast and furious, He shakes hands and smiles with brutal Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chaves.
He sides with Venezuela and Cuba (another brutal dictatorship) against our allies Columbia and Honduras. He campaigned on having no-conditions, high-level meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the rabid, barking-mad dictator of a country (Iran) that is responsible for virtually all of the ongoing acts of terror leveled against the US since they declared war on America in 1979, and which grows daily closer to developing and using an atomic bomb. In Afghanistan President Obama has made it clear to the Taliban that they will not be crushed as the Iraqi insurgents were under George Bush’s surge, but will rather simply have to run out the clock until some arbitrary date for our publicly scheduled retreat in shame and defeat.
He bows to Saudi Princes, he praises the Mullahs against the protesters giving their lives for freedom in the streets of Tehran as they are shot dead trying to topple our mortal enemy. And instead of using the influence of his office to pressure Egyptian President Mubarak on freedom FROM DAY ONE, he instead mangles the situation in such a way that no ally we have in the world has the slightest confidence in us whatsoever.
And finally, the boy who was raised in Indonesia can return as a man and as President to the land of his childhood -- where Israelis are not allowed to set foot in country; where, in some provinces, Sharia courts allow stoning to death for adultery; where 100 lashes with a whip is meted out for the crime of homosexuality; where female circumcision is practiced openly; where so-called “honor mutilations” go unpunished, if not celebrated, and where political and religious repression exist that would boggle the American mind -- and say, with his megawatt smile, that Indonesia and America are bound together by “shared values.”
Does that really sound like a moderate to you?Ah, good old liberal logic. When presented with facts, accuse the other person of being hateful. Nice rebuttal.
And when the other side presents you with reality accuse them of liberal logic!
Whatever that might mean.The only Liberal reality that he has presented to me is the notion that the president is a moderate. And he may be right (According to liberal logic). After all Obama hasn't eaten the heart out of an enemy and broadcast it on television like the Syrian rebels did, he just sent arms to them. But for some unknown reason that makes him a moderate. Sorry for asking the question, I guess looking at the presidents track record makes me a hater. Enjoy that Nobel peace prize...
No, that does not make him a moderate, but then it does not make him a left winger or liberal either.
Sounds like full on capitalism to me.
Your right wing logic is seriously flawed.Has anyone yet read the recent interview with Seymour Hersh? Wow. Talk about calling Obama out. And he's writing a new book. Should be interesting.
Sure he is a moderate to Libyas standards. And Egypts, and Iran, and, and Russia, and every other crappy country out there that is steeped in big government control over their peasents. But for America we have higher standards, that's why the United States has one of the largest middle classes, and the most personal liberty in the world.
The entirety of Scandinavia (plus Denmark and The Netherlands) would like to have a few words with you.
Okay, that's about twenty million people compared to 300 million Americans, 5.2 million of whom have more than a million dollars in the bank.
Denmark's nominal GDP averages around $314 billion annually which is a little more than what the people of the United States gives to charity each year, that's not including what our politicians so generously grab from us at gun point. And that is on top of the lazy, entitled, liberal, mooches, who suck our welfare system dry every year.Got any proof that 100% of welfare recipients are lazy, entitled, and Liberal?
Because that sounds like a hilarious ass-pull to me.And I hear voter fraud is pretty rampant.....and Benghazi was a coverup...
Did you hear the one where our president was born in Kenya and apparently isn't actually Barack Obama?
Buy hey man those are FACTS because a conservative said so.Did I say 100%? I know you libs like to read things that aren't there.
Well you didn't say some or a few did you?
Oops, not you Z!Yes, people on welfare were polled. They were asked these three questions:
1. Are you lazy?
2. Do you feel that you are entitled to government handouts?
3. Are you a liberal who receives government assistance?
The results:
1. Eighty-six percent of people said they were, in fact, lazy. Twelve percent refused to answer the question, because it seemed like too much work, and two percent didn't understand the question.
2. Ninety-one percent of people said that, yes, they do believe that they are entitled to government handouts. Nine percent refused to answer unless they received payment for doing so.
3. Remarkably, one hundred percent of people said that they vote Democrat, because Democrats are willing to fund their lifestyle with endless government entitlements.
Here's the source for this amazing study:
www.study-not-needed-for-obvious-reasons.com/polls/
Okay, it's an exaggeration, but there is SOME truth to this.
Let me put it in less emotive language. Imagine there was currently a Republican administration and Democrats were protesting a piece of legislation that you agreed with. Do you think those wanting amendments should have to win the public argument by convincing voters their approach is better, or at least win the political argument by presenting a viable alternative, or do you think the Republican administration should make amendments just on the grounds that the Democrats want them and will shut down the government if they don't get them? Which approach do you think is conducive to good governance?
Actually it is the Democrats who refuse to budge on the budget proposal. The house sent it to them three times, and they refused it. Democrats are the ones who refuse to negotiate.
Classic!
Actually that man refused to give me his wallet so it's his fault I hit him!The perfect description of a Democrat, a Socialist, or a Communist. Jail people for not giving me their money.
No, totally unreal for me.
It is capitalists who jail people for not giving them their money.Yes crony capitalists like Democrats. Commies just kill everyone they don't like.
Says the man whose none communist government kills millions.
News flash, communists have killed more people in the last one hundred years than any other group.
By the way, what's a none communist? Do you mean, "non communist"?Ugh, I feel like I'm talking to a holocaust denier.
Funny, that's exactly how I felt.
I take it that your answer means that you can't actually supply any figures.here, read a book.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/ … munism.pdfOK, after waiting two minute to down load your book I got bored. Try again.
(It was probably written with a strong anti communist bias any way, full of "facts" about countries that weren't communist in the first place)Yeah yeah, no country is "fully" communist. They have to kill all their peasants before they take all the money and land away. Then they can be fully communist.
Are you talking about the US here?
Only it sounds like a pretty good description to me.
ETA, I should have said corporate capitalism.
Why didn't Boehner put the Senate budget bill to a vote?
Oh, right. It would have passed as is.
No grandstanding, no chest-thumping, no taking the economy hostage.
Where would be the fun in that?Or they could all just let the sun set on this Obamacare crapola that the dems are trying to force down the throats of the American people, and get on with business.
The sun has set.
The fat lady has sung.
The Affordable Care Act is moving forward into enrollment and implementation.
Whether you like it or approve of it or not.
So as you suggest, GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.
There is plenty of business that has been woefully neglected during this obsession with defunding or repealing (47 time-wasting votes?) Obamacare.
If you don't want to buy health insurance, pay your $97 and shut up. Really.
But don't expect the rest of us who are doing the RESPONSIBLE THING (e.g., we are not getting a handout here) to allow you charity care when you end up in the ER, ICU or on life-support.
You're way too self-reliant for that.
Hope you've got at least $1 million saved.Don't need a million saved, I work for a living. The sun doesn't set until we oust the socialism and let the free market and personal liberty overcome.
Free market and personal liberty! That's an oxymoron as well.
Socialism and small government is an oxymoron.
Communism leads to hundreds of millions dead through false famines and political assasinations, it leads to gulags, work camps, and poverty. Capitalism just leads to Disneyland. It's not perfect, it's just the happiest place on the Earth.
I'll try asking again.
Either:
legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
Or:
legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if they don't get what they want.
Which do you think is a better way to govern and why?And I'll tell you again. The Democrats are the ones who refuse to negotiate, they rejected the budget three times, the president has said he will not negotiate because he want's his brainchild of soclalized medicine to go down in the history books as the socialist saving point of America, he wants to be the messiah and if he doesn't get his way he is going to run to his slobbering media to cast blame on the Republicans.
You cannot subjugate a nation if more than half of the people aren't buying what you are selling.Worked great for...every other industrialized nation in the world. Why should America be the only one to refuse to get with the times?
Funny. I could've sworn Obama won 61.7% of the electoral vote and 51.4% of the popular vote. That seems like more than half to me, or are 39.3% and 48.6% suddenly more than 50% now?You are telling me about Democrats, Republicans, and socialized medicine, but I haven't asked you about Democrats, Republicans, or socialized medicine. I'm asking which you think is a better form of governance in terms of amending and repealing legislation.
Either:
A: legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
Or
B: legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if they don't get what they want.
A or B? Or if you think there is an option C, I'd be happy to hear about it.One more time. The Senate majority leader, (Harry Reid) rejects the proposal three times and then goes to shutdown. I would prefer that he negotiates, rather than him and Obama playing dictator.
Sure, but how about the GOP actually present something worth negotiating?
Ah yes, a conservative who adores the Constitution, except when it suits him to completely dismiss it.
The Affordable Care Act was enacted into law in 2009 and ruled to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Speaker Boehner has presided over 40 separate votes to repeal or defund the ACA to no avail. Mitt Romney campaigned on repealing the ACA and LOST.
Now, you expect the President and Democrats to negotiate over a law that was passed over three years ago in the manner set forth by the Constitution and then ruled by the Supreme Court to be constitutional? Why should they? Just because some 30-odd Tea Party extremists didn't get their way and are willing to hurt their own people and damage our country's reputation through what amounts to blackmail? It would set a dangerous precedent!Still not ofay with what this is all about so maybe some of you Americans can answer a few questions for me.
Will the act make healthcare in the US more affordable? If so what's the problem with it?
Will affordable health care have to be paid by increase in taxes? Or is it another golden egg for private companies?
Will the poor have access to affordable healthcare by implementation of the bill?
Is it seen as a good thing by the majority of the US populace, or is it seen as more government intervention?
Personal observation
In 2002 a good friend of mine emigrated to the US for employment purposes, a little over a year after they had settled his wife became seriously ill, the cost of the medical care was not matched by his insurance (even though it was quite expensive) and he ended up with a $57000 bill which negated his reasons for working in the states.
He has since returned to the UK with his family and describes the US healthcare system as a nightmare, he thanks god for the NHS in the UK even with its flaws.
So is the motivation by some of your politicians to change the healthcare system really a bad thing?"So is the motivation by some of your politicians to change the healthcare system really a bad thing?"
Of course that is not a bad thing. However, it is a "bad thing" to do it outside the lawful channels and in the process damage our credit and reputation and harm the very people they say they are representing.
Yes a conservative who adores the constitution even when the time comes to dismiss an unjust law. Conservatives have been doing this since they elected Abraham Lincoln into office. And it is not unconstitutional to kill a crappy law. They did it with prohibition, they can do it with socialized medicine.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not asking about Republicans, Democrats, Harry Reid, Obama, socialized medicine, or the ACA. I'm asking what you think is a better form of governance in terms of how ANY legislation gets repealed and amended. Doesn't matter who is asking for the change, or why. Out of the following options:
A: legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
B: legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if it isn't.
I think A is a better form of governance. Do you agree or disagree?Yes, make that four times you have evaded the question. It's a very simple multiple choice question, which requires a simple A or B answer. If you think there is an option C, by all means share it with us. Otherwise, do you think A or B is preferable?
A: legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
Or
B: legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if it isn't.
It could equally be argued that a "clean bill" has been proposed to the House and it has been refused, but that doesn't address what I see as the real issue anyway. In my opinion it boils down to two simple choices:
Either:
legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
Or:
legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if they don't get it.
Which do you think is more conducive to good governance?
What facts? That everybody who is unemployed is lazy, that everybody who is unemployed is liberal, that everybody who is unemployed feels that they are entitled?
No, no hate there, nor any bigotry.Yes, Onusonus does rather doesn't he! You could easily be lead to believe that all right wingers were hateful and bigoted couldn't you.
I was referring to welfare claimants but if the shoe fits........................
That is very hateful name calling. I disagree so I must be a bad apple. Liberal tolerance is so morally relative.
It's okay for me to call him names because I'm better than him, but not the other way around, because I'm an enlightened liberal!
Uh oh! Lack of reading comprehension skills. Go back and read again.
What you said -
" And that is on top of the lazy, entitled, liberal, mooches, who suck our welfare system dry every year."
No qualifiers or anything to suggest that you weren't including everybody who had the misfortune to not be wanted by your money grabbing system.
I'm laughing so much at that that I can not come up with a coherent answer.
Billy - could you link us to corroboration of your "$500 million" dollar claim?
One example: "Critics of the health law spent a whopping $400 million on television spots criticizing the law since 2010, over five times the $75 million that the law’s supporters have spent on ads promoting it. Analysts expect $1 billion in expenditures by 2015."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07 … formation/
"In total, the health-care law has drawn more advertising dollars than any other single political issue since Obama was first elected in 2008, Wilner says. And organizations have spent far more campaigning to block or repeal the Affordable Care Act than to support it — $235 million since between when it passed in March 2010 and the Supreme Court ruling in 2012, according to Kantark ... The [new round of commercials, he says, could help elect representatives who will work to repeal Obamacare in 2013 special elections and in the 2014 midterms."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-an … 2013-03-19
"Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group found that since March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, ObamaCare critics have spent $400 million on television spots compared with supporters' $75 million."
303551-obamacare-critics-outspent-supporters-51-on-ads-analysis-finds-
These figures give the impression that about $500 million will be spent in total to stop (pre-passage) or get rid (post passage) of Obamacare. What is amazing is that the law passed and stood up against this much pressure. I suspect that because the health industry and the insurance companies support it has a lot to do with that.Those appear to be critics. I looked at your links and I could not determine that they were "advertising lies," however.
I'd like to get back on topic. The Tea Party is now the death panel ...right? ... determining what government programs will operalte and what won't to save lives. I bet the 30 million people who use ER rooms instead of having doctors would think so.
I think the topic that stands out is that many people rebel against the facts about the Affordable Care Act. They're convinced it's wrong .... for what ever crazy lie they been told. But what I like best is that critics really do not want 30 million people to have health insurance. As if it is a zero sum game: if you get insurance, I lose mine.
Fortunately, the know nothing party is not going to win this one. Shortly the stock market will drop several thousand points and speaker Boehner is going to get some pretty demanding phone calls--from billionaires.
Now you don't. Until the ACA your insurance company could drop you just when you needed them most. And they have done it.
Medical costs are the leading cause of bankrupcty in the United States.
Logic would tell you, that people on welfare do not have a reason to go bankrupt, do they?
These are WORKING families devastated by medical costs.
And yes, even with insurance.
But whatever.
BTW the government already makes decisions about your healthcare.
Every prescription drug you take has been first approved by the FDA.
Your insurance company has a whole lot more decision making authority than the government -- and still will. Unless, of course, you are on Medicaid.
Yes, low-income workers can be on Medicaid. I have no reason to assume you are not qualified.So we're trading a flawed system for a disaster that will raise the average cost of insurance to individuals by thousands, cause unemployment to rise, force religious institutions to provide services that are in fundamental opposition to their own beliefs, and prompt employers to opt for the cheaper insurance. Thus kicking millions of working Americans off their preferred medical insurance plans.
This system, by the way, is such an ingenious idea that the same people who created it have exempted themselves from it.
I don't really understand the blame the Tea party logic to this whole thing. EVERY Republican except for two(2) in the House of Reps voted for a government shutdown. 2 Dems in the House of Reps and 8 in the Senate voted for it. So, I totally reject that it's the Tea Party, it is in fact the entire Republican party apparently with the exception of 2 US Reps. That's not a party fringe, that's a party on the fringe.
- Onusonusposted 11 years ago0
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso … t-n1716292
Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility. -Thomas SowellYes, it's called separation of powers. A nice little part of American law that keeps well intended libs from destroying the country.
They should because it is accurate and true. Please be precise, technical and specific as you point out exactly what part of Thomas Sowell's article you think isn't true.
Here's what Wikipedia says about this shutdown:
"Due to disagreement regarding inclusion of language defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act, the Government has not passed a funding bill. The House continues to offer bills to fund important, non-contested agencies, but the Senate, controlled by Harry Reid, has not considered them[15]. The shutdown is currently in progress."The USA government is working just as designed.
The founding fathers design provides for checks and balances to ensure that no tyranny will be present within the republic.
Currently the debate is whether to fund or not fund a bill that:
1. had to be signed before it could be read.
2. exempts the Congress and most government employees.
3. has resulted in numerous exemptions to partisan organizations based on Presidential edicts.
4. has resulted in a discriminatory delay for some companies based on Presidential edict.
5. increases healthcare and insurance costs for hard working Americans.
6. eliminates full-time jobs.
7. does not provide more doctors, nurses, or healthcare support in any manner.
The bill that is creating the controversy was not introduced by the Tea Party, but has been shown to be discriminatory against, detrimental to, and destructive for hard working Americans.
The true "Death Panel" is engaged as part of the policy generated in support of the Bill that was so blindly approved.
There are no winners under this concept of discrimination.Some questions in response to your points:
1. Was the ACA passed by the House and the Senate?
2. Has the ACA been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS?
3. Did the architect of the ACA run on a platform of health care reform in the 2012 election?
6. Did he win?
7. Did those opposing the ACA run on a platform of repealing it should they win, in the 2012 election?
8. Did they win?
9. Is there a well established process for amending/ repealing laws (which doesn't put the financial well-being of the country at risk)?
10. Which is a better form of governance:
A: legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.
Or
B: legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if they don't get what they want.
This is about more than one piece of legislation. It's about abiding by the well established democratic processes, rather than trying to circumvent those processes because you don't like the outcome.Don, of course you realize that since no law can force us to buy a product, it was ruled constitutional only as a tax, (something that Obama insisted it wasn't, until it had to be because any other way it is unconstitutional). Just one more thing highlighting the lies and deception that are the hallmark of Obama(demo)care.
Does the dishonesty, misrepresentation and manipulation utilized to force this down our throats mean nothing to you? Do you truly not see it?
By the way, since it does only exist as a tax, why are we not factoring this in when calculating the TAX increases under Obama?
Our $2500 promised savings has turned into a $7500 increase. I don't know about you, but I can't afford that kind of "savings". I already pay plenty in taxes, without having to pay such a high premium to have my health care decimated. Reminds me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House..."thank you Sir, may I have another?"If you disagree with the Supreme Court decision, there are established processes in place by which you can seek remedy. I'm not just making this up, it's happened! Some Supreme Court decisions have historically been reversed, overruled by amendments to the constitution etc. The difference is that these changes were preceded by those calling for the change actually winning the public and political debate. No one is saying you can't disagree with the SCOTUS, or ask for a law to be repealed, but you and the Republicans don't get special treatment. You have to follow the same processes as anyone else to bring about the changes you want to see.
Republicans had the opportunity to win the public and political debate on Obamacare in the House, in the Senate, in the 2008 general election, the 2012 general election, in representations to the Supreme Court. It failed to do so on every occasion. Now, it it truly believes in it's case, it must go through the hard slog of convincing the people, and colleagues in government that the law should be repealed, which they are perfectly entitled to do. That is how democracy works. Those processes have developed over the course of hundreds of years and they are there for a reason. Stability. Circumventing those processes is irresponsible and dangerous. Worse, it's already causing people who absolutely don't deserve it, real pain.It's interesting that some people are saying the Affordable Care Act has failed before is comes into existence January 1, 2014.
There are components of the law already in effect and they are helping people.
Yet, we do not hear anyone arguing against those.
The main -- dare I say only -- argument against ACA seems to be the individual mandate.
The government can't tell me I HAVE to have insurance.
Really?
Do you drive a car???
If you do, you have to carry (read: BUY) insurance to register it and drive it legally.What does a car have to do with health insurance? Are you seriously equating the choice to buy a car (and thus buy insurance to protect someone else) with being alive (and thus buying insurance to protect yourself)?
Mighty Mom, do you realize that if I choose not to drive a car - I don't have to buy automobile insurance?
But you still have to pay for roads even if you don't drive.
Roads are mostly supported by a steep use tax on gasoline. If you don't drive - you're not paying that tax.
The tax you pay on fuel is nothing like as high as the tax on fuel in the UK.
UK road taxes do not make a significant contribution to road building and repair, which is heavily supported out of general taxation.Gas taxes do not generally support road building, just maintenance. And you're right - it often isn't enough, which is why so many of our bridges are falling down.
As far as new roads; that should come from either the people needing it or the general tax fund. Not gas taxes.
Howard is right in that most road monies come from gas tax. But in addition, whether you drive a car or not, you use the roads - your groceries don't magically appear on your doorstep each morning.
We all benefit hugely from roads - the interstate highway system in the states was instrumental in making the country the financial and production powerhouse it is (or was, if you prefer).You all benefit hugely by a healthy workforce.
How so? Given a sufficient number of potential employees to do the work, how does it benefit to have more healthy ones at hand?
I can't believe you have to ask that!
So it is easy and cheap and consistent with a prosperous business for an employer to constantly recruit new staff is it?
We benefit from an EMPLOYED workforce. Unfortunately, the workforce participation rate, coupled with unemployment, indicates that our country is in serious trouble. Instead of really dealing with this serious problem, President Obama spent all his political capital on an ill-conceived policy, Obamacare. Now, how will unemployed people pay for insurance or the individual mandate? Will the government just "gift" free healthcare to millions of unemployed people? Who will pay for that? Healthcare doesn't come for free; employed people are going to pay greater premiums.
Jobs should have been the top priority. Employed people tend to have more insurance than unemployed people.Unfortunately Obama (or any other president) can only tinker around the edges.
Jobs are largely provided (or taken away) by his capitalist masters.He didn't do much at all. All he did is spend a lot of money and hope for the best to happen.
Job creation takes a bit more effort than that.So what would you suggest he do to encourage job creation?
We need to reduce our corporate tax rate to attract jobs to America. Our tax rate is currently running around 40 percent! Britain's is about 23 percent. America is taxing corporations to death, and the end result is that they just take their jobs elsewhere. Even President Obama agrees that the corporate tax rate is too high, but he hasn't done a thing about it. Britain, on the other hand, has reduced its corporate tax rate by 7 percent in the past few years.
We need immigration reform. Studies suggest that most of the new jobs that are created in America are being filled by immigrants. One government study suggest that over seventy-five percent of jobs that were created in the past four years went to immigrants who were new to America, some legal and some illegal.
At some point, we need to get our spending under control. Our out-of-control spending is like a cancer on our entire economy. At the current rate President Obama is spending, he will quite literally have borrowed more money than all 43 presidents before him. That's not responsible.
This would be a start.Do you really think cutting corporate taxes would do any more than put Obama on several Christmas card lists as a thank you for increasing profits?
Look at your own countries history, when it was at its most prosperous tax levels were higher than they are now.Yes, I really do think it would promote domestic jobs.
Even President Obama said it needed to be done. America's corporate tax rate is the second highest off ALL nations in the world! Most nations dropped their corporate tax rate when the global economy slid downward. America did nothing under President Obama.
John, you are always telling us that we need to look to Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to better healthcare plans. I believe we need to look to Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to a corporate tax rate. Our corporate tax rate is higher than what it is in Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, and every other highly successful nation in the world. Shouldn't that say something? I believe it does, and so does President Obama. The problem is that our president said the corporate tax rate was a problem, and then he never did anything about it, just like he said he was going to address our massive debt problem.Britain is highly successful!
I've heard it all now.
It's full of American corporations who make sure they pay no tax in the UK - it doesn't really matter what our tax rates are if nobody pays them.They must pay a lot. It's cheaper to relocate to other countries. Part of that is because of salaries, and part of it is because of taxes.
We were talking about corporations paying taxes.
Well that's what I thought but I couldn't relate your comment that they must pay a lot to my comment that they pay little or nothing.
Oh for heavens sake!
Get real, Starbucks have been operating in the UK for years and avoiding paying any corporation tax for the whole time.Starbucks isn't a company I would defend. Starbucks is an exceedingly liberal company. I do find it interesting, however, that such a notably liberal company is avoiding taxes, if you are right.
How much tax did Starbucks pay? How much do you think Starbucks should have paid?Read all about it -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20624857
Yes, I know somebody who has benefitted. However, he fully acknowledges that our country will go broke because of the kind of freebees he has received. He's a liberal Democrat.
Even IF it helps millions of people, how great will Obamacare be if it bankrupts us?How strange! A country with an economy built on health care and private profits of such carers!
I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.
Well if the ACA will bring your country to its knees what other conclusion can you draw than your countries economy is based on private healthcare?
John,
Our economy is a house of cards. We borrow money right and left. Instead of dealing with this and getting financially stable, President Obama pushed ill-conceived policy, Obamacare. It was irresponsible. Now, we're poised to go bankrupt. How will that be for the global economy?It's not responsible. . . yet. However, our health industry is 1/6 of our economy. Our government is not efficient, and I am confident we will find that Obamacare costs are so high that American taxpayers will have to bailout an ill-conceived program. In my estimation, Obamacare won't be a self-sufficient program.
I hope I'm wrong. Can you name a single time when the American government was efficient? I can't.'fraid I'd need something a little more substantial than your estimation.
That's all we get from President Obama, estimates. His Obamacare estimates have proven to be about 1/3 of what the actual expense will be. I bet my estimates are more accurate than his.
War is what will bankrupt the U.S.--as has all empires--not Obamacare.
First off, I don't really disagree, so how is that a victory?
In tennis, a single serve doesn't make a match. If you're going to use tennis as a metaphor, please use it correctly. It's my "serve."
War is definitely a huge draw on our resources, and we would do well to quit waging our little wars around the globe.
Although I am against Obamacare, I agree - the right, if they are serious about budgetary issues, need to look at the military sector.
Obamacare is a larger slice of the economy, 1/6 of the economy.
President Obama increased the war effort in Afghanistan and then wanted military action against Syria. With President Obama, we have a triple financial drain: war, Obamacare, and out-of-control domestic spending.
Which one will bankrupt us is kind of a moot point. All three will contribute to bankruptcy.
Billy - that's because (financially) it's already failed. It punishes the lower-middle class. In what world can that be deemed a success?
I enjoy your comments Howard. The government subsidy calculator from Kaiser http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ shows that a parent and child household making $20,000 a year would only be paying $400 for the year. But you have to make the monthly payments first in order to get the refund that brings it down to $400. So it could be that ObamaCare will punish those who make just over the line and cannot receive Medicaid. (I didn't get the info on what the monthly payment would be.)
The Kaiser calculator is a good one. Now, log back on and select Florida, or any state that is not expanding Medicaid and enter a zip from that state. I'm thinking of a single mother - like you searched for - that makes only $10,000 per year at her part-time job. Look at the premium she must pay - then look at how much of a subsidy she qualifies for. Nothing.
Did I miss something? The eligibility requirements for family-related Medicaid in Florida are:
Children under age 1 with household income less than 200% of FPL.
Children ages 1 through 5 with household income less than 133% FPL.
Children ages 6 to 19 with household income less than 100% FPL
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/acc … tsheet.pdf
The income in your example is 42% FPL.I might have used a different zip but I ended up with 47% FPL.
What's important is that the single mother does not qualify for a subsidy.
This is going to break a lot of people. How can a person that can barely put food on the table spend more than a third of her income on a policy? And then still have to pay a deductible and co pay?
Don, most of your questions are without merit, but Number 2 is interesting and the answer is "No."
I'm pretty sure the answer to number 2 was yes...
Actually, there were only two facets of the ACA that the Supremes addressed. One was the personal mandate - which they upheld - but only as a "tax" and the second was the constitutionality of forced Medicaid expansion, which they denied. The law, in its entirety was not addressed.
Do you hold yourself in such high esteem that you believe you can simply assert something without providing any reasoning to support it? Do you believe we should be so enamored of you that we should immediately be convinced something is true on the grounds that you said it?
I suggest you back up that statement with some reasoning, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like an egomaniac. However, if simply stating a contrary opinion is the level of discourse you prefer then: no those questions don't lack merit, the affordable care act is constitutional, and the Republicans (and you) are wrong.Whatever happened to you after I explained why Number 2 was "No/"
I'm not going to split hairs with you. The individual mandate (which is the part most Republicans are up in arms about) was ruled to be constitutional. If it wasn't the law would not exist in it's current form.
The point is that the ACA has successfully gone through all branches of government. The Democrat architect of the law ran on a platform of it's implementation, and his Republican opponent ran on a platform of repealing it as soon as possible. The public voted for the Democrat. Therefore the ACA is the Senate's will, the House's will, the people's will, and the judiciary have ruled it constitutional. So by every political measure, there is a mandate for the ACA. So instead of doing everything they can to make it fail, why doesn't the GOP (and you for that matter) present us with a viable alternative, or at least suggest ways the ACA can be improved. Objecting to a law purely on the grounds that it's "socialist" is idiotic. The criteria should, be does it work? If it does, great. If it doesn't what can be done to improve it? I take it you hope you are proven wrong about the ACA and that it does in fact provide millions of people the opportunity to have health care, without causing an economic apocalypse, right? Do you agree that would be the best outcome?I don't object to the ACA because its socialism. I object because it is fiscally unstable.
You should know that there are suits working their way up the court system as we speak. The mandate was upheld. The medicaid expansion was denied. The SCOTUS has not heard a case about the entirety of the law. They will hear more bits and pieces in the coming months.
It would be nice if everyone could have healthcare - but this bill does just the opposite. It punishes the poor. Don't believe me - I don't have time right now to dispel your misunderstandings. Wait and see.No you think it's fiscally unstable. Others disagree. The fact you didn't even mention that someone earning 10k a year might be exempt from the individual mandate doesn't give me confidence in your opinion.
Predictions about what may happen in the future does not change the fact that right now the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional.
That doesn't address what I asked. Do you hope you are proved wrong about the ACA? And do you agree that the best outcome would be if Obamacare was a complete success?There is no possibility that Obamacare "can" be a success, so I can't address the fantastical question. Yes, there are a number of exemptions from the mandate, and I've mentioned many, but that's not why the law will fail. There are exemptions for religious groups. There are exemptions if the premium is more than 8% of your income, there are exemptions if you would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, but your state chose not to.
Math-wise - this Act simply does not work. I think it's bad that the poor will be punished, but aside from that - the ACA is actuarially unfeasible.I could accept it as reasonable if you believed it might not be a success, but no possibility of success? I think that's a foolish statement. Are you suggesting your actuarial prowess is greater than all those who considered the financial implications of the ACA? If so, what causes you to have such faith in your own ability? Alternatively, are you putting your faith in someone else's actuarial skills? If so, is it an individual orgroup that have brought you to your current conclusion? As you are not against the ACA on ideological grounds, I'm interested to know why you give more weight to your current financial view, than the opposite view. What has tipped the balance for you in one direction rather than the other?
Related Discussions
- 819
The Beginning of the End of the Tea Party
by Doug Hughes 13 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last...
- 43
How many of YOU who have voted for President Obama are happy with his
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
- 192
People are mad at the Tea Party for the US Debt downgrade!
by Gary Anderson 13 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan. The Republicans rejected it.2. Obama wanted shared sacrifice including taxes for...
- 31
Would the Tea Party have started if Mccain was elected president?
by EPman 13 years ago
Would the same outrage still exist? Or did Obama's presidency ignite the flame?I tend to think that Obama being elected certainly was fuel on the fire -- that is to say, the Tea Party would not be as big or popular if John McCain was president. Much more people would be too complacent simply...
- 106
Democrats Fear The Tea Party!
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these budget negotiations and in the republican candidates for president!
- 125
Are right-wing extremists destroying America?
by promisem 5 years ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...