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.

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's something from what Seb claims to be the bastion of conservatism:



Where CNN analyst Brianna Keilar admitted to Jake Tapper today the latest Obamacare delay was driven by politics and was another admission of the problems with the law.

I really think the Republicans would have been smarter to let this turd have kicked in earlier and fester so people could get damn good and sick of Obamacare once they saw what it did to employment and the benefits they trade higher wages for.

Que?

What do you want them to do? Take Obama to court to prevent these unilateral changes?

I'm talking about at first when they tried to delay it, but you're right. Obama is pretty much doing whatever the hell he wants now and no one seems to be taking him to task for it.

That's what makes this attempt at humor on his part all the more ironic:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-thats-good-thing-president-i-can-do-whatever-i-want_778944.html

Charles Krauthammer on the lastest "change". Yes Sebter, this is from a conservative POV.

But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.

It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes — and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.

http://therightscoop.com/krauthammer-on-obamacare-employer-mandate-delay-this-is-stuff-you-do-in-a-banana-republic/

 djones520 wrote:
Charles Krauthammer on the lastest "change". Yes Sebter, this is from a conservative POV.

But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.

It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes — and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.

http://therightscoop.com/krauthammer-on-obamacare-employer-mandate-delay-this-is-stuff-you-do-in-a-banana-republic/

Just imagine what the next President can do...

 djones520 wrote:
If they did, they'd just get slapped with more "obstructionist" labels.

Are you implying that this session of congress has been a wildly productive one? And that the republican party with their freshman tea party buds have been the beacon of democracy? I think obstructionism is about the only thing we can call it.

Following the laws = bad if your a Republican.

At least when a democrat decides to not enforce a law for a time it doesnt lead us into a "Pre-emptive" strike without congressional approval on a country that we wind up occupying for years spending trillions to detroy and rebuild so my rich friends can get richer. For clarity I was talking about Iraq and president Bush. Basically

Dare I say it....Thanks Obama?

 ClintonG wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If they did, they'd just get slapped with more "obstructionist" labels.

Are you implying that this session of congress has been a wildly productive one?

Naw... been pretty divisive SINCE the Congress that passed the PPACA.

And that the republican party with their freshman tea party buds have been the beacon of democracy?

Uh... so, they weren't elected?

I think obstructionism is about the only thing we can call it.

Yeah... like when last fall, the House Republicans offered several budgets that included the PPACA delays, and were roundly accused of being Kidnappers, arsonists and terrorists. *likely because they have that stinky "R" after their names.

Yet, since then, Obama delayed/changed the law to mitigate electoral problems for Democrats.

fething awesome law, eh?

Following the laws = bad if your a Republican.

At least when a democrat decides to not enforce a law for a time it doesnt lead us into a "Pre-emptive" strike without congressional approval on a country that we wind up occupying for years spending trillions to detroy and rebuild so my rich friends can get richer. For clarity I was talking about Iraq and president Bush. Basically

huh?

I see someone say that every now and again. The only country I recall us attacking of late without immediate congressional approval, was Libya, under Obama.

Of course he's referring to Iraq, but we had congressional approval months before we went in.

 djones520 wrote:
I see someone say that every now and again. The only country I recall us attacking of late without immediate congressional approval, was Libya, under Obama.

Of course he's referring to Iraq, but we had congressional approval months before we went in.

Possibly Syria too before Putin out maneuvered the Administration

 djones520 wrote:
I see someone say that every now and again. The only country I recall us attacking of late without immediate congressional approval, was Libya, under Obama.

Of course he's referring to Iraq, but we had congressional approval months before we went in.

As I recall, he was being applauded by the senate and congress from both sides.

 whembly wrote:

No... why?

Because, were you receiving aid (federal, I should have specified), I could legitimately call you a hypocrite given that my tax dollars would be subsidizing your well being.

You are not, so fair play.

 djones520 wrote:
If they did, they'd just get slapped with more "obstructionist" labels.

The GOP cannot sue because they have not been injured by the law.

My only beef with Obamacare is that we should just go to a government health system with the ability to get a private coverage if you so desire.

Call me a socialist but honestly healthcare just should not be controlled by a cooperation who's interest likes in increasing the bottom line for its board of directors, not helping people.

Alas, the last time I suggested it the Libertarians in my Industrial Economics class nearly sacrificed me to Ron Paul with a dagger made of solid gold bought with bitcoins and money backed by gold kept in a foreign and totally unregulated bank.

 Seaward wrote:
Was this in the post where you claimed the New York Times was part of the conservative press? I'll admit I didn't give them a lot of attention after that.

So I say 'yeah, that adjective shouldn't have been there' and then you carry on talking about that, and address not one single part of my actual argument. Just an adjective I used once. You really are extraordinarily vacuous.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Because that exact phrase was one I used, which you quoted why responding. I do not recall the conversation "drifting off", it stayed pretty close to the topic at hand.

No, drifiting off as in responses got less and less frequent, until sooner or later one of us forgot to respond entirely.

It was so pointless that you personally felt the need to revive it, and conduct a post mortem on it? I got your point Sebster. I rebutted it on numerous occasions.

What?

I posted a comment on the form this thread as a whole had taken, you mention you'd happily engage in debate, and I tell you we'd already done that, and it was a waste of time. You claim that I revived our debate with a full post mortem, for reasons I don't understand.

I cannot honestly say the same for your good self who tried every trick except engaging with the actual point being made.

Except that's not true in the slightest. I actually put time in to figuring out as many ways as possible to explain the point to you. If you can't see that, well ultimately your inability to actually consider another point of view is your problem and not mine.

Except that I do not see where you said that was not correct Sebster. I do see this post of your's as an echo of a comment you addressed to djones520 ("And here is the echo chamber in action. Focus in one a single adjective in my post, use that to ignore my greater point. Find any excuse to reject what you don't want to hear, and at the same time embrace anything that attempts a point you do want to hear. Do this in a group, and the result is incredibly powerful. "). At no point did you say that your phrase was incorrect, or anything of the sort.

"True, plenty of the reports come from mainstream media. Thanks for the clarification"

The fact remains though that you did attempt to brand the links posted here as " bits and pieces from the conservative press about how bad and evil and doomed to fail ACA is". So what I would say is;
1. Calling you out on this is absolutely correct. You made the claim and did not retract it

"True, plenty of the reports come from mainstream media. Thanks for the clarification"

Maybe that really wasn't clear enough the first time around, so I'll put it a little more clearly for you - My use of 'conservative' was wrong. Completely wrong. Zippidy doo dah wrong a wrong wrong wrong. Wrong.

Doesn't change one damn thing about the echo chamber you guys are using, sitting around convincing each other how right you are, with not one second of thought that maybe a lot of the stuff you're embracing is utter junk. And if you want an example of this, consider that when a poster came in and said 'you guys are basically just an echo chamber', you used one incorrect adjective to attempt to dismiss the entire post.

So you don't want a discussion, yet you come in here start to revisit past discussions and start new ones. I believe that is a text book example of mixed messages.

I just thought I'd make a comment, and leave it for time to see how things played out. I especially thought about it in the wake of the 2012 election, given how a straight view of the numbers should have told people quite clearly who was likely to win regardless of politics, but I couldn't figure out a way to make it sound like something other than gloating. It's something I'd thought about doing on a lot of issues, across a number of forums, ever since the debates over the Gulf War, where I witnessed a hell of a lot of people on both sides of the argument switch their reasoning without ever switching their ultimate conclusion, or admit they were changing their reasoning to suit the changing situation on the ground.

Well, perhaps you would like to lead by example. So given your time frame I will see you on an annual basis as you review your position. I'll just keep myself abreast of the developments and make my own determinations based on the evidence posited.

I actually do think a lot about my old positions. There's plenty that I've gotten wrong, and plenty more than I got right through luck more than good reasoning. Its something I learned in the wake of the shambles that was the Iraq War debate... because I got that one wrong. I thought the primary issue was not the deathtoll (as I thought it would be far less bloody), nor was it whether or not there were really Weapons of Mass Destruction (I thought no government was so stupid that they'd argue almost entirely on the need for invasion because of WMD when they weren't 100% sure they were there)... but the breach of sovereignty in invading - if the US can invade a country without being attacked and without UN sanction, how can we protest when any other country invades another without being attacked or without UN sanction? As it turned out, the war was such a dragged out, wasteful mess that the US set a standard no other country would want to follow, and my concern wasn't an issue at all.

And in the wake of the war, I saw lots of people who'd used arguments very similar to my own just switch to talking about the absence of WMDs and the bodycount, without acknowledging they were changing their argument. And I saw lots of people on the other side start claiming it was never about WMDs, but about Saddam being a very bad man, once again never acknowledging that they were changing their argument. It was far more important to those people to think they were always right than to be honest about the discussion, and honest with themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
And how is that determined?

Read App C, if you want. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

It doesn't actually link to the hard numbers used to make the calcs, but it does go through their reasoning. I'm not sure there's any need to doubt this so much that we have to the numbers, I mean as economics concepts go, 'reducing individual's cost of monthly living and increasing marginal effective tax reduces the incentive to work' is as close to 1+1=2 as you're going to get.

After all, it's totally one thing for a person to choose not to work and to accept the natural consequences of that decision. Right?

But, it's quite another thing for a person to choose not to work because others are being forced to subsidize his/hers well being...

This happens whenever you get a policy that flattens income distribution. The alternative is to insist that no government policy ever flattens income, so no minimum wage, flat tax etc are the only way to go. And that was actually the way we tried to do things, for a period. It was called the Gilded Age. Children died of malnutrition, and everyone eventually decided it was a pretty sucky way to do things.

 sebster wrote:
No, drifiting off as in responses got less and less frequent, until sooner or later one of us forgot to respond entirely.

The responses were still pretty frequent. You just stopped posting

 sebster wrote:
What?

I posted a comment on the form this thread as a whole had taken, you mention you'd happily engage in debate, and I tell you we'd already done that, and it was a waste of time. You claim that I revived our debate with a full post mortem, for reasons I don't understand.

So you're choosing to mention a discussion that you bowed out of, complete with details of why you felt were pointless was in fact letting sleeping dogs lie and in no way a post mortem of how you felt the conversation went, nor an attempt to again try to justify your position? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 sebster wrote:
Except that's not true in the slightest. I actually put time in to figuring out as many ways as possible to explain the point to you. If you can't see that, well ultimately your inability to actually consider another point of view is your problem and not mine.

Yup. You did absolutely everything. Except engage with the point actually being made.

 sebster wrote:
"True, plenty of the reports come from mainstream media. Thanks for the clarification"

Ok, I will admit that I missed that.

 sebster wrote:
Doesn't change one damn thing about the echo chamber you guys are using, sitting around convincing each other how right you are, with not one second of thought that maybe a lot of the stuff you're embracing is utter junk. And if you want an example of this, consider that when a poster came in and said 'you guys are basically just an echo chamber', you used one incorrect adjective to attempt to dismiss the entire post.

Sounds like you're more than a little unhappy that you were called to task for being wrong in your initial description.
So a thread was started to discuss the ACA. After it's launch there is nothing but bad news about it, many of the defenders bail, we continue to talk about it as it is a developing issue and has the potential to impact all our lives especially with the employer mandate being deferred continually, and that is an echo chamber? So do we stop talking about the ACA just because there is no good news, or because no one wants to defend it any more?
People choosing not to discuss something should not impact the ability of others to discuss the matter. No one has been excluded. If there is actual good news about the ACA then please share it.

 sebster wrote:
I just thought I'd make a comment, and leave it for time to see how things played out. I especially thought about it in the wake of the 2012 election, given how a straight view of the numbers should have told people quite clearly who was likely to win regardless of politics, but I couldn't figure out a way to make it sound like something other than gloating. It's something I'd thought about doing on a lot of issues, across a number of forums, ever since the debates over the Gulf War, where I witnessed a hell of a lot of people on both sides of the argument switch their reasoning without ever switching their ultimate conclusion, or admit they were changing their reasoning to suit the changing situation on the ground.

Yeah. That reads a lot like "I thought I'd bait my line and see what I could get to bite".
So what do the 2012 elections have to do with anything here Sebster? Because it sounds like you're trying to get a rise out of those conservatives using this echo chamber. Shame for you then that I'm not a conservative. Had I been able to vote in the 2012 elections it would have been 3rd party.

 sebster wrote:
I actually do think a lot about my old positions. There's plenty that I've gotten wrong, and plenty more than I got right through luck more than good reasoning. Its something I learned in the wake of the shambles that was the Iraq War debate... because I got that one wrong. I thought the primary issue was not the deathtoll (as I thought it would be far less bloody), nor was it whether or not there were really Weapons of Mass Destruction (I thought no government was so stupid that they'd argue almost entirely on the need for invasion because of WMD when they weren't 100% sure they were there)... but the breach of sovereignty in invading - if the US can invade a country without being attacked and without UN sanction, how can we protest when any other country invades another without being attacked or without UN sanction? As it turned out, the war was such a dragged out, wasteful mess that the US set a standard no other country would want to follow, and my concern wasn't an issue at all.

And in the wake of the war, I saw lots of people who'd used arguments very similar to my own just switch to talking about the absence of WMDs and the bodycount, without acknowledging they were changing their argument. And I saw lots of people on the other side start claiming it was never about WMDs, but about Saddam being a very bad man, once again never acknowledging that they were changing their argument. It was far more important to those people to think they were always right than to be honest about the discussion, and honest with themselves.

And that constant shift in focus infected both wars. Afghanistan went from destroying the Taliban and AQ into nation building, bringing democracy and rights.

I thought that the Iraq War was an unnecessary distraction and diverted resources away from Afghanistan and the fight against AQ. Then again I was also of the opinion that we should have declared war, obliterated the terrorist training camps from the air, assassinated AQ and Taliban leaders, send out a strong message that we will not be attacked on our own soil, and put our efforts into covert operations to target AQ infrastructure.

The rats are trying to jump ship:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/12/democrat-calls-obamacare-rollout-disastrous-distances-himself-in-campaign-ad/?intcmp=latestnews

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The responses were still pretty frequent. You just stopped posting

Okay.

So you're choosing to mention a discussion that you bowed out of, complete with details of why you felt were pointless was in fact letting sleeping dogs lie and in no way a post mortem of how you felt the conversation went, nor an attempt to again try to justify your position? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You said you were happy to debate, I said we tried that, and it was not something I wanted to do again. You think that was me drudging up the past, then okay.

Yup. You did absolutely everything. Except engage with the point actually being made.

Yeah, okay. If that's how you want to end up thinking about that debate, then I'm not going to keep trying to change that.

Ok, I will admit that I missed that.

Thankyou, but really - it was the first sentence of my reply to Seaward. It shouldn't be missed.

Sounds like you're more than a little unhappy that you were called to task for being wrong in your initial description.

No, I was fine with that. It was poor wording on my part. I was disappointed that exactly what you guys in the echo chamber were doing, was being used all over again to avoid recognising that you're in an echo chamber.

So a thread was started to discuss the ACA. After it's launch there is nothing but bad news about it,

That would be the perception inside the echo chamber, yeah.

Meanwhile there's 3.3 enrolled right now, leading to a projection of something over 6 million by March 31, only about a million short of the forecast. The CBO is reporting that total uninsured will decrease by 13 million, and perhaps most importantly, there is no panic or threat of withdrawal from insurers. The program is far from perfect, but it's rolling out okay.

Of course, from where you are there's nothing but bad news, but that's because, again, echo chamber. But while some of these negative stories are fair and important, many are irrelevant or just plain fictitious (such as the claims of cooked enrolment numbers or even fake enrollees... all of which start to sound a lot like the 'government is making up CPI' and 'the polls are wrong Obama is going down' stuff we've seen in other very recent echo chambers). But most importantly, what you guys are doing is just excluding the positive information entirely - when the CBO released its report, did you read one article explaining what the reduced work hours in App C actually meant, and more importantly, did you read anything at all about App B, that showed an increase in insured people by 13 million?

Yeah. That reads a lot like "I thought I'd bait my line and see what I could get to bite".

Really? Because it wasn't, at all. If I wanted to bait, I would have started that thread post 2012 election, calling people out on the echo chamber then. But post election that, to me, felt like gloating.

So instead I'm trying it here, before the chamber has come crashing down, in the hope that a few people might think about what I'm saying, and reflect on it when the 'ACA is doomed' belief never comes to eventuate.

But cheers mate, thanks for assuming the worst possible of me that you can. That's a real nice approach.

And that constant shift in focus infected both wars. Afghanistan went from destroying the Taliban and AQ into nation building, bringing democracy and rights.

I thought that the Iraq War was an unnecessary distraction and diverted resources away from Afghanistan and the fight against AQ. Then again I was also of the opinion that we should have declared war, obliterated the terrorist training camps from the air, assassinated AQ and Taliban leaders, send out a strong message that we will not be attacked on our own soil, and put our efforts into covert operations to target AQ infrastructure.

I don't want to talk about Iraq. I just want you to understand that what I am trying to do is get people to be a little more aware of how people can end up doing nothing more than reinforcing their own opinions, and then tricking themselves in to adjusting their opinions afterwards, and never actually addressing what they got wrong, or perhaps more importantly why they got some parts wrong.

I'm just going to cut out a lot of chatter that has us dancing in circles

 sebster wrote:
That would be the perception inside the echo chamber, yeah.

Meanwhile there's 3.3 enrolled right now, leading to a projection of something over 6 million by March 31, only about a million short of the forecast. The CBO is reporting that total uninsured will decrease by 13 million, and perhaps most importantly, there is no panic or threat of withdrawal from insurers. The program is far from perfect, but it's rolling out okay.

Of course, from where you are there's nothing but bad news, but that's because, again, echo chamber. But while some of these negative stories are fair and important, many are irrelevant or just plain fictitious (such as the claims of cooked enrolment numbers or even fake enrollees... all of which start to sound a lot like the 'government is making up CPI' and 'the polls are wrong Obama is going down' stuff we've seen in other very recent echo chambers). But most importantly, what you guys are doing is just excluding the positive information entirely - when the CBO released its report, did you read one article explaining what the reduced work hours in App C actually meant, and more importantly, did you read anything at all about App B, that showed an increase in insured people by 13 million?

Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

Edit 14:28 02/13/14
I meant to mention this earlier, but the same CBO that woefully underestimated the costs of the ACA? That one Seb? You'll forgive me if I take anything projection that they make with a pinch (read:dumper truck) of salt. When the actual figures are revealed, and the details of the policies emerge, then we'll see if there has been an actual improvement.

If between that, a website full of gaping security holes, insurance companies not collecting payments so people cannot use their ACA insurance, the costs actually rising in a majority of the States, the law being modified on a whim with no oversight, doctors excusing themselves from treating ACA patients, the President's poll numbers tanking as a direct result of his signature legislation, mandates being deliberately deferred until after an election, companies not hiring/cutting back on positions because of the ACA, and a great many people having to deal with less favourable plans than they previously had is "rolling out okay" then I dread to hear your version of a disaster.

The links and evidence are all here in this thread should you care to read them.

 sebster wrote:
Really? Because it wasn't, at all. If I wanted to bait, I would have started that thread post 2012 election, calling people out on the echo chamber then. But post election that, to me, felt like gloating.

So instead I'm trying it here, before the chamber has come crashing down, in the hope that a few people might think about what I'm saying, and reflect on it when the 'ACA is doomed' belief never comes to eventuate.

But cheers mate, thanks for assuming the worst possible of me that you can. That's a real nice approach.

Sorry Seb, just going by my past interactions with you and your own words. Especially when you keep trying to rile up people to get a response by claiming this thread is an echo chamber when it has already been explained how that is factually incorrect, and getting your victim card in early because you feel like the Evil Echo Chamber will come crashing down on you.

 sebster wrote:
I don't want to talk about Iraq. I just want you to understand that what I am trying to do is get people to be a little more aware of how people can end up doing nothing more than reinforcing their own opinions, and then tricking themselves in to adjusting their opinions afterwards, and never actually addressing what they got wrong, or perhaps more importantly why they got some parts wrong.

You seem to be making this great habit recently of bringing up topics that you don't want to discuss. I was just trying to show that I was not coming from what may be considered a typical conservative viewpoint. But if you want to post comments and have no one respond to you or give an opposing perspective I'll let you retire to your own personal echo chamber.

At least when a democrat decides to not enforce a law for a time it doesnt lead us into a "Pre-emptive" strike without congressional approval on a country that we wind up occupying for years spending trillions to detroy and rebuild so my rich friends can get richer. For clarity I was talking about Iraq and president Bush. Basically

Are you talking about Vietnam and Kosovo again?

I don't know if this deserve it's own topic, but I've brought it up several times ITT.

Liberal Attorney Jonathan Turley: Expansion of Obama's Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty

MEGYN KELLY: Jonathan Turley is a constitutional professor and attorney at the George Washington University law school. Professor Turley, great to see you, I'm a big fan of you and your blog.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you.

KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we've lost that.

TURLEY: Well, I'm afraid it's quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we've been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that's what the president is doing. I think that we've become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven't been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left [whembly: !!!!]. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics. [whembly: !!!!]

KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What' so bad that will come of this?

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'

The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent.

KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn't have -- they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits --which they've done -- I mean, what are they supposed to do?

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country. [whembly: what the prof said!]

KELLY: JonathanTurley.org, I recommend it. Thank you so much for being here, sir.

TURLEY: Thank you, Megyn.

More than once here he warns that Obama’s “enablers” are destined to rue the fact that they remained silent “during this period.”

Precedents are being set that will be built on by future presidents of both parties. That's the real issue.

You could sue... but, lately the DoJ has been successful in getting these cases thrown out due to lack of standing... as it's really difficult to prove to "have" standing (which, isn't a bad thing per, se).

If I'm not mistaken, Congress, itself, can't sue. (they could impeach or shut down the purse, but what's the likelyhood of that ever happening?).

Maybe we need an Amendment to codify Congress’s right sue the Executive Branch, thus formulating a process for the Judiciary to weigh in instead of "avoiding" the issue.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

Don't you know? Plans lost to Obamacare are great! Those plans were terrible anyway, and shame on your for thinking you could have control over your finances. Fortunately they offer a more expensive, less covered, and overall worse plan that will fit your NEW needs.

Where do I pay my subscription for the echo chamber?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

Don't you know? Plans lost to Obamacare are great! Those plans were terrible anyway, and shame on your for thinking you could have control over your finances. Fortunately they offer a more expensive, less covered, and overall worse plan that will fit your NEW needs.

Where do I pay my subscription for the echo chamber?

Heh...

Hearing anything our the WA's state exchange snafu?

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

Don't you know? Plans lost to Obamacare are great! Those plans were terrible anyway, and shame on your for thinking you could have control over your finances. Fortunately they offer a more expensive, less covered, and overall worse plan that will fit your NEW needs.

Where do I pay my subscription for the echo chamber?

Heh...

Hearing anything our the WA's state exchange snafu?

I haven't looked at it in awhile, no need to. Juicy link?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

Don't you know? Plans lost to Obamacare are great! Those plans were terrible anyway, and shame on your for thinking you could have control over your finances. Fortunately they offer a more expensive, less covered, and overall worse plan that will fit your NEW needs.

Where do I pay my subscription for the echo chamber?

Heh...

Hearing anything our the WA's state exchange snafu?

I haven't looked at it in awhile, no need to. Juicy link?

nvm... I was thinking of Oregon's issue.

Last I remember were the debiting issue in WA:
http://www.kgw.com/news/Enrollees-report-erroneous-debits-by-WA-Healthplanfinder-235244701.html

Ah yea, I read about that. I would've been absolutely furious if I was late on a single payment because of that screw up.

I'm sorry Whembly, but unless that link is guaranteed to have some form of praise for the merits of the ACA then I cannot in good conscience read it lest we allow this thread to remain an echo chamber

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sorry Whembly, but unless that link is guaranteed to have some form of praise for the merits of the ACA then I cannot in good conscience read it lest we allow this thread to remain an echo chamber

Your post lacks enthusiasm, to the Echo Chamber with you!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sorry Whembly, but unless that link is guaranteed to have some form of praise for the merits of the ACA then I cannot in good conscience read it lest we allow this thread to remain an echo chamber

Well... White House: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Will Drive 2.5 Million Americans Out Of The Workforce.

Does that count?

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sorry Whembly, but unless that link is guaranteed to have some form of praise for the merits of the ACA then I cannot in good conscience read it lest we allow this thread to remain an echo chamber

Well... White House: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Will Drive 2.5 Million Americans Out Of The Workforce.

Does that count?

Hmmmm,

When Mitt Romney signed his health-reform legislation in Massachusetts in 2006, economists didn’t discern a substantial impact on the labor market. That led many Obamacare cheerleaders to dismiss concerns that the law would depress the workforce. But Mulligan observes that the Massachusetts law did not have a meaningful impact on income tax rates, unlike Obamacare. The ACA “increases national rates about 12 times as much as the Massachusetts law increased rates,” notes Mulligan; “among other things, [Massachusetts’] employer penalty is an order of magnitude less.”

I thought that the line was that ObamaCare was the same as RomneyCare and so it would not have this sort of negative impact?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Those figures would be impressive..... except for the fact that more people lost health insurance than gained it. When the reality matches the projections then perhaps that will be the time to celebrate.

The nationally collected figures state quite clearly that your claim above is completely wrong. The 14 million figure is a net figure, the overall impact after those insurance losses were calculated.

And this is exactly what I mean about the echo chamber - all you hear is 'people used to be covered and aren't now'. You have no idea about how that fits in the overall scheme, because you never read the stuff that describes the overall impact.

I meant to mention this earlier, but the same CBO that woefully underestimated the costs of the ACA? That one Seb? You'll forgive me if I take anything projection that they make with a pinch (read:dumper truck) of salt. When the actual figures are revealed, and the details of the policies emerge, then we'll see if there has been an actual improvement.

Woefully underestimated... because their figures didn't align with what the people you like listening to are claiming. Meanwhile the CBO carries on doing very good, consistently accurate work without political bias, and finds that its results get ignored whenever people in an echo chamber want to ignore them because its findings aren't what they want.

If between that, a website full of gaping security holes,

You claim this, and yet we know for a fact that 3.3 million people are signed up, and it appears that final sign up by March 31 will be around 6 million, only around 1 million short of original targets.

insurance companies not collecting payments so people cannot use their ACA insurance,

Is one of the stories spread by the true believers in ACAWILLFAIL, to try and dream away the enrolment numbers.

the costs actually rising in a majority of the States

Only if we compare the old do-nothing minimum plans with the current do-something minimum plans, which is an idiotic means of comparison.

the President's poll numbers tanking as a direct result of his signature legislation

Trying to prove policy is bad through personal polling is vacuous nonsense. Linking Obama's popularity to ACA is a stretch to begin with (it requies us to pretend second term blues, IRS, NSA etc don't exist), but even if we grant that, then it simply indicates the policy is not popular, but that has little indication on whether it is bad policy, and is a million miles from proving the policy will remain unpopular once it is fully up and running.

Simple reality of politics is that almost major reform is unpopular when it is brought in. People are, almost universally, negative whingers who will panic about whatever change exists that can be perceived as negative, while almost completely discarding the positive.

companies not hiring/cutting back on positions because of the ACA

Is actually a legitimate complaint. The employer mandate is both clunky and unnecessary.

and a great many people having to deal with less favourable plans

I like how I give numbers, and you give 'a great many'. And it doesn't even occur to you that you're dealing with hazy impressions and personal narratives (often just completely made up by paid actors working for the Koch brothers)... while at the same time denying the figures provided by organisations who's job it is to produce that information.

Sorry Seb, just going by my past interactions with you and your own words. Especially when you keep trying to rile up people to get a response by claiming this thread is an echo chamber when it has already been explained how that is factually incorrect, and getting your victim card in early because you feel like the Evil Echo Chamber will come crashing down on you.

Okay. Let's just watch and see.

You seem to be making this great habit recently of bringing up topics that you don't want to discuss. I was just trying to show that I was not coming from what may be considered a typical conservative viewpoint. But if you want to post comments and have no one respond to you or give an opposing perspective I'll let you retire to your own personal echo chamber.

Cheers. I thought it would help to give an example in which I got things wrong, in the hope that maybe it would encourage others to really think about how they've formed their opinions. I was wrong. You really, really don't want to do that.

And I am happy for people to respond, but if it's just more true believer nonsense like this thread has carried on for so long, then there's no point. That's why I was hoping to change that dynamic. Clearly it didn't work. So now all we can do is wait and watch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well... White House: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Will Drive 2.5 Million Americans Out Of The Workforce.

Does that count?

We've just been over that very fething thing. It isn't 2.5 million people no longer working - anyone who says that is lying or doesn't know how words work. And here you are posting it again. Come on.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well... White House: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Will Drive 2.5 Million Americans Out Of The Workforce.

Does that count?

We've just been over that very fething thing. It isn't 2.5 million people no longer working - anyone who says that is lying or doesn't know how words work. And here you are posting it again. Come on.

Hey... *I* didn't say that... fething Press Secretary Jay Carney did... you know... the dude that speaks for the Obama Administration?