Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/10/02 03:11:07
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
If you guys insist on opening this door in this thread, you won't like what comes out of it.
Sparta? Rome?
While I do like the idea, they have a point. Besides, then we'd get more of the crap where 'Candidate X didn't deserve his medals'. Christ was that a disgrace. Clearly someone who was there thought he did. His name escapes me, but a congressman who gave both his legs for his country was accused of being unpatriotic during his last run. It's shameful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 03:12:27
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2013/10/02 03:23:15
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: 1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
The requirement on big business is peripheral to core structure of Obamacare. It could be dumped and the rest wouldn't be seriously affected. In fact it probably should be dropped.
But the individual mandate is core to the basic structure of Obamacare, which is why the Republicans are keen on delaying it - they know the rest of the bill doesn't work without it.
Because as long as you give people the right to insurance despite pre-existing conditions, then you need a way to make them pay in to the system while they're still healthy. Don't have that and you end up with New York insurance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: (wondering how the hell Prohibition was repealed, women got votes, or hell... how things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 eventually got repealed after numerous challenges.)
I think they were changed when one political party threatened to feth things up by stopping government and hitting the debt ceiling, unless people caved and repealed the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibition etc...
Or possibly it was through years of work that eventually commanded the voting majority that could repeal those laws.
It was one of the two, I forget which.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's wildly unpopular... but, the supporter don't wanna listen. *shrugs* The true test would be the '14 and '16 elections. ('cept, Hillary will be the next Prez)
People fear new reform. Medicare and social security were similarly unpopular. But once in place, when people start seeing how they actually work then their opinion can change, if its good law. You mentioned prohibition, and that's a classic example of sucky law that got repealed.
And so here, if I'm right, the law will come in, people will see it deliver, and they'll support it being kept. If you're right they'll see the law suck, and they'll support it being repealed.
And yet there's the Republicans doing everything they can to stop people actually seeing the ACA in practice...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ok, one thing that I don't get about this shutdown - the Republicans finally settled on wanting to defer the ACA for, what was it, a year. That was met by scorn from the Democrats saying that it was illegal and unconstitutional, and that the will of the people had to be respected because Romney ran against the ACA and was defeated...... yet the Democrats deferred its implementation themselves previously.
The individual mandate, which Republicans are currently trying to get deferred, is a different thing from the business mandate, which was previously deferred.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 03:44:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/10/02 03:47:54
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
How do some of you not understand in here that the ACA is a law?
I don't even understand how the Republicans can be upset at how it was implemented, considering it is an enormous handout to health insurance companies. Oh wait, black president did it.
text removed.
Reds8n
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 06:50:37
whembly wrote: Don't forget...takes two to tango. Reid/Senate said "no" to House's Proposal.
To explain it, again...
"Give me this list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
"No."
"Okay, give me this reduced list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
That is not negotiating. It is demanding the Democrats give up stuff in order to gain nothing but the status quo of government operating.
Negotiating means I give up some of the things I want, and you give up some of the things I want, and in the end we reach a deal where we both get some nice new things that we want. It would be a negotiation if Republicans gave up drilling for oil under the Whitehouse, and got tax breaks for everyone who wears a monocle... while the Democrats gave up free puppies for illegal immigrants, and got bedtime stories read to every federal prisoner.
Tit for tat. I get something, you get something. That's negotiation.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/10/02 04:52:55
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Something like "Change this little part now and we won't throw a fit again when the debt ceiling hits." I guarantee you will see round two of this when the debt ceiling becomes an issue again. It will be like Groundhogs day. Ow man that debt ceiling thing is only in a couple of weeks. If the Dems give up now they wont have a shiney bauble to old up when that happens, I wonder what the Repubs would hold hostage then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 04:57:52
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
2013/10/02 05:09:38
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: Don't forget...takes two to tango. Reid/Senate said "no" to House's Proposal.
To explain it, again...
"Give me this list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
"No."
"Okay, give me this reduced list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
That is not negotiating. It is demanding the Democrats give up stuff in order to gain nothing but the status quo of government operating.
Negotiating means I give up some of the things I want, and you give up some of the things I want, and in the end we reach a deal where we both get some nice new things that we want. It would be a negotiation if Republicans gave up drilling for oil under the Whitehouse, and got tax breaks for everyone who wears a monocle... while the Democrats gave up free puppies for illegal immigrants, and got bedtime stories read to every federal prisoner.
Tit for tat. I get something, you get something. That's negotiation.
And you completely ignore that the House has the power of the purse.
Keep on blaming Seb...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/02 05:33:13
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: Don't forget...takes two to tango. Reid/Senate said "no" to House's Proposal.
To explain it, again...
"Give me this list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
"No."
"Okay, give me this reduced list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
That is not negotiating. It is demanding the Democrats give up stuff in order to gain nothing but the status quo of government operating.
Negotiating means I give up some of the things I want, and you give up some of the things I want, and in the end we reach a deal where we both get some nice new things that we want. It would be a negotiation if Republicans gave up drilling for oil under the Whitehouse, and got tax breaks for everyone who wears a monocle... while the Democrats gave up free puppies for illegal immigrants, and got bedtime stories read to every federal prisoner.
Tit for tat. I get something, you get something. That's negotiation.
And you completely ignore that the House has the power of the purse.
Keep on blaming Seb...
Just because you have the power of the purse doesn't mean that they can pick and choose which constitutional federal laws they would like to ignore.
And besides, the house doesn't really have the power of the purse. Spending bills have to originate in the House, but they don't control it.
Sure, they get to hold the checkbook and keep it in their pocket. Makes them feel important to have that power. They even get to fill out the "Pay to the order of" and "$X fields of the check", just like a big kid! But their "power of the purse" is completely powerless and useless because that check is just a worthless piece of paper after it leaves the house because the house doesn't have the authority to write and cash checks like that by themselves. Unless the Senate co-signs the check, the President endorses the back of it, and the treasury finds the money to pay for the check you just wrote (it might just bounce in a couple weeks), it's useless.
If the house truly has the "Power of the Purse", why isn't the government currently in full operation with a budget that is a Republican dream come true?
Because they don't. And "all spending bills must originate in the house" doesn't mean that you don't have to negotiate.
2013/10/02 05:34:18
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Now why did Obama delay the Employer Mandate? He's technically not able to do that.
Now why are there numerous exemptions to Obama supporters.
Now why does Congress critters get preferential treatment?
... in direct contradiction to the ACA law.
I don't even understand how the Republicans can be upset at how it was implemented, considering it is an enormous handout to health insurance companies. Oh wait, black president did it.
Nah... it's a gak sammich of a law. Nothing to do with the Pres being "black".
Whembly, the amount of stupid that pours forth from your noise-hole is still frightening to behold; even if it is just in other people's quotes.
Glad I can scare you.
How about actually debating me rather than calling me names... eh?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/02 05:37:47
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Now why did Obama delay the Employer Mandate? He's technically not able to do that.
Now why are there numerous exemptions to Obama supporters.
Now why does Congress critters get preferential treatment?
He is technically able to do that. The Executive gets to enforce laws, and has some leeway in doing that. It's almost like we have three distinct branches of government for that kind of thing. The agencies are building the frame work to enforce it, and if a part is not ready then they get to delay it.
No idea.
Congress critters get preferential treatment because of a bipartisan law that was passed by both parties that they should do so. Many of the Congress critter benefits are in there because Republicans put them in there to make it look stupid.
2013/10/02 05:38:17
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: Nah... it's a gak sammich of a law. Nothing to do with the Pres being "black".
Welllll.... technically, no white president who signed into law sweeping healthcare reforms ever faced this much pushback from a single political party.
FACT
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/10/02 05:40:38
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: Don't forget...takes two to tango. Reid/Senate said "no" to House's Proposal.
To explain it, again...
"Give me this list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants." "No." "Okay, give me this reduced list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
That is not negotiating. It is demanding the Democrats give up stuff in order to gain nothing but the status quo of government operating.
Negotiating means I give up some of the things I want, and you give up some of the things I want, and in the end we reach a deal where we both get some nice new things that we want. It would be a negotiation if Republicans gave up drilling for oil under the Whitehouse, and got tax breaks for everyone who wears a monocle... while the Democrats gave up free puppies for illegal immigrants, and got bedtime stories read to every federal prisoner.
Tit for tat. I get something, you get something. That's negotiation.
And you completely ignore that the House has the power of the purse.
Keep on blaming Seb...
Just because you have the power of the purse doesn't mean that they can pick and choose which constitutional federal laws they would like to ignore.
Um... yes they can.
There's a SC case that reaffirmed this... it's the same case law that would allow the HOUSE to NOT fund social security if they chose to...
And besides, the house doesn't really have the power of the purse. Spending bills have to originate in the House, but they don't control it.
What the hell does that mean? o.O Of course they control it.
Sure, they get to hold the checkbook and keep it in their pocket. Makes them feel important to have that power. They even get to fill out the "Pay to the order of" and "$X fields of the check", just like a big kid! But their "power of the purse" is completely powerless and useless because that check is just a worthless piece of paper after it leaves the house because the house doesn't have the authority to write and cash checks like that by themselves. Unless the Senate co-signs the check, the President endorses the back of it, and the treasury finds the money to pay for the check you just wrote (it might just bounce in a couple weeks), it's useless.
Um... okay, if that was the case, then why is there a partial shutdown?
If the house truly has the "Power of the Purse", why isn't the government currently in full operation with a budget that is a Republican dream come true?
You're looking at it the wrong way. The SENATE needs to acknowledge that the House has the "Power of the Purse", just like the PResident has the power to veto anything. ALL PARTIES need to negotiate with that in mind. All we're seeing now is the line drawn on the ground.
Because they don't. And "all spending bills must originate in the house" doesn't mean that you don't have to negotiate.
whembly wrote: Nah... it's a gak sammich of a law. Nothing to do with the Pres being "black".
Welllll.... technically, no white president who signed into law sweeping healthcare reforms ever faced this much pushback from a single political party.
FACT
Wanna play that game brah?
(you and I know that Bill Clinton was the first "black" President! )
Now why did Obama delay the Employer Mandate? He's technically not able to do that.
Now why are there numerous exemptions to Obama supporters.
Now why does Congress critters get preferential treatment?
He is technically able to do that. The Executive gets to enforce laws, and has some leeway in doing that. It's almost like we have three distinct branches of government for that kind of thing. The agencies are building the frame work to enforce it, and if a part is not ready then they get to delay it.
It doesn't work that way and you know it.
The PPACA was very explicit. The Employer Mandate had an explicit begin date. There were no mechanism for the Executive Branch to change it. It's funny because who's going to take Obama to court and force him to enforce the law?
This was purely done for political expediency. Nothing more
Congress critters get preferential treatment because of a bipartisan law that was passed by both parties that they should do so. Many of the Congress critter benefits are in there because Republicans put them in there to make it look stupid.
Wow... keep on defending your team.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 05:50:47
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/02 05:46:47
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: Don't forget...takes two to tango. Reid/Senate said "no" to House's Proposal.
To explain it, again...
"Give me this list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
"No."
"Okay, give me this reduced list of things I want or I'll do something stupid that nobody wants."
That is not negotiating. It is demanding the Democrats give up stuff in order to gain nothing but the status quo of government operating.
Negotiating means I give up some of the things I want, and you give up some of the things I want, and in the end we reach a deal where we both get some nice new things that we want. It would be a negotiation if Republicans gave up drilling for oil under the Whitehouse, and got tax breaks for everyone who wears a monocle... while the Democrats gave up free puppies for illegal immigrants, and got bedtime stories read to every federal prisoner.
Tit for tat. I get something, you get something. That's negotiation.
And you completely ignore that the House has the power of the purse.
Keep on blaming Seb...
Just because you have the power of the purse doesn't mean that they can pick and choose which constitutional federal laws they would like to ignore.
Um... yes they can.
There's a SC case that reaffirmed this... it's the same case law that would allow the HOUSE to NOT fund social security if they chose to...
The SCOTUS case states that the house isn't required by law to fund something. It ruled that the house could decide to write a budget that doesn't fund social security if they chose to. It didn't rule that the Senate has to pass that budget and that the POTUS has to sign that budget.
And besides, the house doesn't really have the power of the purse. Spending bills have to originate in the House, but they don't control it.
What the hell does that mean? o.O Of course they control it.
Is that why they wrote CR after CR with none of them going into effect?
Sure, they get to hold the checkbook and keep it in their pocket. Makes them feel important to have that power. They even get to fill out the "Pay to the order of" and "$X fields of the check", just like a big kid! But their "power of the purse" is completely powerless and useless because that check is just a worthless piece of paper after it leaves the house because the house doesn't have the authority to write and cash checks like that by themselves. Unless the Senate co-signs the check, the President endorses the back of it, and the treasury finds the money to pay for the check you just wrote (it might just bounce in a couple weeks), it's useless.
Um... okay, if that was the case, they what is there a partial shutdown?
Because the House keeps on thinking that they control the purse and keep on writing stupid checks that nobody else wants to co-sign or endorse?
If the house truly has the "Power of the Purse", why isn't the government currently in full operation with a budget that is a Republican dream come true?
You're looking at it the wrong way. The SENATE needs to acknowledge that the House has the "Power of the Purse", just like the PResident has the power to veto anything. ALL PARTIES need to negotiate with that in mind. All we're seeing now is the line drawn on the ground.
If you can't fund the government without the Senate approving it, then maybe you don't have the power that you think you have. Saying that a bill must originate in a particular chamber doesn't mean that the chamber gets to force the opposite chamber to pass their dream-budget. They don't have the "power of the purse". They have the power to "present a plan on how they would like to spend the money in the purse, if that is okay with everybody else".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 05:59:43
2013/10/02 06:09:52
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: And you completely ignore that the House has the power of the purse.
Ultimately that's just a catchphrase based on the formality of where a funding bill has to originate, not the actual realities of politics. Because any resolution to continuing resolution for funding would have to pass through the senate as well. Which means either house of congress can just sit there and stop funding, and make demands on the other party in order to return to normal operations.
And let's run with that. Let's assume that the Democrats in the senate said 'we're going to refuse to pass any bill for continuing funding until the Republicans give us a list of things we want. We accept we won't get everything on our list, but we certainly won't settle for nothing and we haven't even considered the idea that the Republicans might also ask for some stuff.'
Are you honest to God saying that you would describe the above as 'negotiating'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're looking at it the wrong way. The SENATE needs to acknowledge that the House has the "Power of the Purse", just like the PResident has the power to veto anything. ALL PARTIES need to negotiate with that in mind. All we're seeing now is the line drawn on the ground.
Being able to write a bill that the other house has to agree to isn't actually a power. It just means you're the guys who have to do all the typing.
And you're still missing the main point - there was a status quo in place, a balance on how much was spent and where it was spent. You want to change that, you pass a bill that changes that. Can't do that by yourself, then you negotiate with the other side.
By refusing to fund government, they aren't looking to negotiate. They're looking to extort whatever they can from the other side, in exchange for agreeing to act like adults again. Is that honestly how you want government run? That whichever party is least interested in proper governance at any given time gets to hold up government until the other side agrees to give in to some of their demands?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/02 06:23:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/10/02 07:10:56
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
The so called liberal media has gleefully allowed this distortion to flourish. It may come as no surprise that the truth is somewhat different from what you have probably heard.
One of the guarantees offered to the public before the Affordable Care Act was ever brought to a vote was that anyone who was happy with his or her current insurance could keep that insurance. Congressional employees were already covered under an employer sponsored health insurance plan, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). Like many companies, the federal government makes a generous contribution to the cost of premiums under that plan as part of the elected officials’ and congressional staff’s benefits.
During the debate over the bill, Iowa Republican senator Charles Grassley (he of “pull the plug on grandma” fame) proposed an amendment requiring congress and congressional staff to purchase their health insurance plans from the same insurance exchanges that the public would use. Since these federal employees already had employer provided health insurance they would not otherwise have been required to use the exchanges, just like employees of any company that already provides health coverage. The amendment was completely unnecessary and was likely an attempt to embarrass Democrats, should they reject it. But Democrats called Grassley’s bluff and approved it.
The relevant text is found on page 81 of the law, and it says:
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—
(i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this sub-title, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
The question for members of congress and their staffs then became “will my employer’s contribution towards my health insurance continue even though I have to buy insurance from an exchange?” The federal Office Of Personnel Management (OPM) ruled in answer to that question that yes, the federal government may continue to make a contribution to the cost of congressional employees’ health insurance coverage. This was the basis of the “Obama exempts congress from Obamacare” lie.
Of course the right is frothing at the mouth at the unfairness of it all. Andrew Montgomery observed in a FreedomWorks editorial on August 6:
…OPM will allow the government to make generous employer contributions (aka taxpayer money) towards the health benefits of lawmakers and congressional staff. That’s a privilege denied to all other Americans under the health care law.
Here is what these commentators and their media lapdogs are missing: congress and congressional staff, thanks to the Grassley amendment, are already being treated differently from other Americans: they are the only workers in the country whose employer currently provides their health insurance coverage that are being forced from that coverage into the state-run exchanges. Staffers, some making as little as $30,000 a year, were looking at the prospect of having to pay 100 percent of their insurance premiums. The OPM ruling allows them to continue getting their previous level of premium support and not face what would amount to a large pay cut.
Republicans have claimed, ever since the law was passed, that Obamacare would cause workers to lose their insurance coverage, saying that businesses would opt to pay the non-compliance penalty rather than pay for health insurance. It is worth noting that one of few large employers that is dropping employee health coverage is the federal government, thanks to the political grandstanding of one Republican senator.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2013/10/02 08:07:28
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Senate Democrats on Tuesday voted to refuse to enter into official negotiations with the House on a spending bill, saying there can be no talks until the GOP agrees to end the shutdown that began Tuesday morning.
Senate Dems refused, officially, to enter into negotiations.
So... premise of the OP seems dead on.
“All they have to do is accept what we already passed,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said early Tuesday morning.
So, Harry Reid is telling the House they get no say. Unless they do what the Senate wants, nothing will happen.
So who is obstructing things here? My way or the highway is not how adults resolve differences. It's how children do it, until the adults step in and correct them.
Those evil Republicans and their obstructionist ways...
d-usa wrote: Because the administration that is actually administering it knows what part are and aren't ready?
It is passed into law with an effective date. If one side can delay the bill and it be perfectly legal and legitimate, then I don't see how they can then claim that any delay is illegal and unconstitutional. Or can only the Administration that proposed the legislation make decisions over when bills can be implemented and repealed?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ok, one thing that I don't get about this shutdown - the Republicans finally settled on wanting to defer the ACA for, what was it, a year. That was met by scorn from the Democrats saying that it was illegal and unconstitutional, and that the will of the people had to be respected because Romney ran against the ACA and was defeated...... yet the Democrats deferred its implementation themselves previously.
The individual mandate, which Republicans are currently trying to get deferred, is a different thing from the business mandate, which was previously deferred.
So the individual mandate, which is part of the same piece of legislation, is somehow different and is illegal to defer - but the business mandate, which is also part of the ACA, can legally be deferred?
2013/10/02 08:13:07
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
It is passed into law with an effective date. If one side can delay the bill and it be perfectly legal and legitimate, then I don't see how they can then claim that any delay is illegal and unconstitutional. Or can only the Administration that proposed the legislation make decisions over when bills can be implemented and repealed?
So the individual mandate, which is part of the same piece of legislation, is somehow different and is illegal to defer - but the business mandate, which is also part of the ACA, can legally be deferred?
No one is saying that it is illegal, what people are saying is that the Democrats have absolutely no reason to defer it because the Republicans aren't actually offering anything in return for it... you know... negotiating... They are just holding the CR hostage and making a list of demands, just because those demands have become smaller then they initially were doesn't mean its a negotiation because they still don't offer anything in return.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 12:26:26
2013/10/02 12:04:44
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Its a verbal free fire zone in DC. Wonder how many more "Preppers" are going to be created from this.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/10/02 12:45:30
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
hotsauceman1 wrote: So absolutely nothing changes for a normal person?
And yeah, but most of the time it seems like the R's are just whining they didnt gt their way and decide to screw everyone
Well, it is pretty bad for our economy because that means a lot of potential buyers are not being paid. It is another hit to our low Demand economy in a time where supply isn't an issue.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/10/02 13:06:54
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
agnosto wrote: We'll see how far this goes at debt ceiling time. I just like how the party that takes oaths to uphold the constitution conveniently forgets the part of the 14th Amendment that requires them to pay the bills and honor all debts.
Did I miss the ACA being part of the Constitution?
And this tactic is Constitutionally valid. You use Power of the Purse to stall a harmful piece of legislation. Or, as the last proposal made was, to at least have the bill have equal enforcement.
Why should the Dems be allowed to change when parts of it go into effect but the Republicans can't do the same?
I'm just going to assume that you missed the first sentence of my post in your hurry to say something pithy. The debt ceiling is a different animal and IS the embodiment of the public debt. You can't service the debt without money.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2013/10/02 13:10:35
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Make sme wonder what 2014 will hold. Will we get a lot of Tea Party challengers that will lose safe gerrymandered R seats to D candidtes, or will it just force all of the R's into more extreme positions going forward there by killing any idea of compromise or working together.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/10/02 13:27:15
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Some might see it as the Dems vs the Republicans, but really it seems more like an internal power struggle within the GOP writ large.
To paraphrase someone else on this forum, "It's like watching 2 Middle Eastern countries go to war. You don't really care who wins, so long as there's lots of blood."
I think the best part of this will be, hopefully, a 2014 backlash against the Republican party at the polls. I'm not a fan of Democrats (since they just screw up differently) but imo the GOP is substantially worse at the moment. I wish they'd get the gak together and be a reasonable alternative, but until they are; out of the pool.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/02 13:30:11
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/10/02 16:20:40
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
A Florida orthodontist sued the Obama administration on Tuesday, insisting that the White House must abandon changes it has made on its own to the Affordable Care Act, instead obeying the letter of the law as Congress passed it.
The administration has made several tweaks to the Obamacare law, including a one-year delay of a measure that requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer them health insurance or pay financial penalties.
The law specifies an exact date when that feature is to go into effect – January 1, 2014 – but the White House announced in July that it would push that date back, angering some in Congress who saw the move as a unilateral power grab.
The lawsuit, filed by Dr. Larry Kawa, claims that the regulatory changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and go beyond President Obama’s constitutional powers.
'He has no more power to do that than your or I,' Kawa told reporters during a press conference Tuesday. 'In fact, he has an affirmative duty to enforce the law, and we are here to make sure that he does that.'
'I've made investments of both time and money, as a law abiding citizen and a local business owner,' he complained, 'to make sure that my business was in compliance with the law. And as soon as I did that this president moved the goal posts.'
'I am tired of government picking winners and losers, victors and victims, and I suggest it ends here today,' Kawa said.
Judicial Watch, an activist group known for holding executive branch agencies' feet to the fire through Freedom Of Information Act Requests and other legal maneuvers, announced that it had filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the South District of Florida.
The defendants are the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and interim IRS chief Danny Werfel.
'We obviously object to the employer mandate and the entire Obamacare law, but we understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president,'
'President Obama would delay the damage of his health care scheme until after the 2014 congressional elections,' said the group's president, Tom Fitton. 'But politics do not trump the Constitution or the rule of law. And to paraphrase Ulysses S. Grant, the best way to ensure the repeal of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously.'
'If the law is to fail, let it fail now, not when it’s politically convenient for the president,' he told reporters Tuesday.
'The president wants to avoid the consequences of the law, and there are ways to do that legally, and that’s through having Congress repeal it or modify it. He’s chosen not to do that and act as a one-man Congress.'
With the U.S. Civil War fresh in Americans' memory, President Grant said In his first inaugural address in 1869 that 'all laws will be faithfully executed' in this administration, 'whether they meet my approval or not.'
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton (R) and litigation director Paul Orfanedes (L) explained the lawsuit strategy, underscoring that enforcing Obamacare as strictly as possible could be the law's downfall
'Laws are to govern all alike,' Grant added, 'those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.'
Kawa's lawsuit alleges that changing the employer mandate through a regulation 'exceeded [the Obama administration’s] statutory authority, is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and is otherwise unlawful.'
'I am tired of Washington, D.C.picking winners and losers and giving preferential treatment to those inside the beltway,' he said in a statement. 'This is just more of D.C. career politicians protecting their own.
Judicial Watch says the Obama White House acknowledges that at least 200,000 employers in the U.S. employ more than 50 employees and will be impacted by the decision to delay the employer mandate.
The move comes on the day state-level health insurance marketplaces, long-touted by the president, opened for online public enrollment in the Obamacare system. But those rollouts were marked by technical glitches in more than two-thirds of U.S. states, including some websites that were completely non-functioning.
I was wrong earlier... I didn't think anyone would take this up and actually force the Obama administration to actually, you know, implement the law of the land.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/02 16:55:58
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
BaronIveagh wrote: That's... interesting, but I doubt it will get far in the courts. The power of the IRS to regulate taxes has been upheld several times by the SC.
Has nothing to do with the IRS to regulate taxes...
Has everything to do with the PPACA being the law of the land that needs to be faithfully executed. If the administration want it changed, the first thing shoule've done is engaged Congress.
But... this is all an act... as I don't think the Dr has standing... needs to prove he was "harmed".
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/02 20:13:28
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
