Shut 'em Down! |
||
|
Shut 'em down!
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » How is it in his power to change the law unilaterally? And why are you OK with that part anyway and not also delaying the individual mandate? You are beyond confused. Because the individual mandate is the cornerstone of any healthcare reform outside of single payer, you twit. How would you propose to build a heathcare system without the presumption that EVERYONE is insured? For someone who is so vocal, you demonstrate is profound lack of understanding.
[+]
Why was the employer mandate suspended then as it was to be a vital funding mechanism? What is the reason? Who is really owned by Corporations? And how in your mind can the President just unilaterally rewrite law?
But really who cares what Jassik or I have to say on it. Wouldn't it be nice if the President would actually take some questions instead of giving pathetic dishonest speeches? He knows he cannot answer why Corporations get exempt for a year from the law but individual Americans don't. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 1) Correct. Largely based on income. This isn't news. 2) The subsidy, in essence, replaces the current contribution the federal government makes towards its employee's coverage thereby maintaining the status quo for said employees. I was mistaken when I typed it was the same subsidy offered to the uninsured. It is actually more analogous to the contribution any employer makes when they offer coverage through employment, and it addresses the differential treatment that congressional employees get due to how the law applies differently to them and them only. Congress is not exempt from the law. It actually is designed to apply to them more strictly. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan (Now I can't be accused of posting only liberally-biased sources.) http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-special-subsidy-for-congress/ 3) The Senate rejected the amended bill, drafted by Republicans, that would deny any subsidies from being offered to congress and staffers. All because they want to make an example of them. How noble.
[+]
Aeltorian Ausrillius said: » "I cut the deficit in half" ~ Obama 10/1/2013 during 1pm est public speech. I'm not sure why you're quoting this, are you implying that it's wrong? " In 2008, the deficit was about $458 billion. In 2009, it rocketed up to $1.4 trillion. It stayed above the trillion-dollar mark for 2010 through 2012. As the economy has gradually recovered, those cyclical expenses have receded. Tax revenues have risen modestly along with the slowly rising gross domestic product. The FY 2013 shortfall should end up at around $642 billion, according to the CBO." found that in a quick google search, not sure how accurate it is, but the numbers look about what they did the last I looked it up. The deficit is shrinking, the overall debt is still high and will remain so until we have a steady surplus. AKA increase taxes. As actually reducing spending would be severely unlikely. Or just have the federal government start actually trying to make capital. Idk, sell drugs or something. Jetackuu said: » Aeltorian Ausrillius said: » "I cut the deficit in half" ~ Obama 10/1/2013 during 1pm est public speech. I'm not sure why you're quoting this, are you implying that it's wrong? " In 2008, the deficit was about $458 billion. In 2009, it rocketed up to $1.4 trillion. It stayed above the trillion-dollar mark for 2010 through 2012. As the economy has gradually recovered, those cyclical expenses have receded. Tax revenues have risen modestly along with the slowly rising gross domestic product. The FY 2013 shortfall should end up at around $642 billion, according to the CBO." found that in a quick google search, not sure how accurate it is, but the numbers look about what they did the last I looked it up. The deficit is shrinking, the overall debt is still high and will remain so until we have a steady surplus. AKA increase taxes. As actually reducing spending would be severely unlikely. Or just have the federal government start actually trying to make capital. Idk, sell drugs or something. (hint: FY 2009 was October 2008-Sept. 2009, so you can't blame Bush for that, but we all know you will anyway) That's like saying that it is a good thing to increase insurance premiums by $5k a year, then cutting that down by $2,500. You are still paying more than before, but now you have that illusion of savings... 2008/9 were when we paid for the temporary appropriations that the Bush administration had sidelined to pay for the Iraq and Afghani wars. Obama insisted that we budget them regardless of the impact on the national debt because we had to pay for it whether we aknowledged it or not. That is actually a conservative principle that bush played liberal on.
[+]
And yet, there has not been a budget passed since 2008.
Usually that involves leadership at the top to encourage others to do their jobs, but we all know it is Bush's fault, don't we? Bush is directly responsible for much of the 2008 mess, so is Clinton. And, once again, the president is NOT responsible for making or passing the federal budget, only implementing it.
[+]
I'd go make popcorn but I just had teeth pulled today...
lol, Bush never passed a budget during his entire failed presidency.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » lol, Bush never passed a budget during his entire failed presidency. I can't really say I'm a fan of Bush, but he did maintain the office and preserve the republic, so you can't really call his presidency a failure anymore than you can call anyone else's a failure. Technically the only presidents who have faced a legitimate threat to the republic are James Madison and Abraham Lincoln. Even Truman didn't face the imminent destruction that they did. I definitely wouldn't call Bush's presidency a success, though. I guess you could say any of the cold war presidents faced imminent threat to the republic, but Madison's white house was burned to the ground by the british and Lincoln's republic was divided. Obviously a liberally-slanted site, but the video is worth a watch. It shows that this shutdown is no accident, in fact it was planned and promised. Rachel Maddow:
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/10/rachel-maddow-explains-republicans-planning-shutdown-years-vide/ The shutdown hurts innocent people, and no one cares. Yay. I'm starting to wonder why the heck I bother to care.
[+]
There was a question on the last page directed towards someone else but I have to interject with my opinion;
Odin.Jassik said: » Do you have something against "capitalism"? Yes. Taking something that is freely available and then turn it around and sell it for pure profit gain is just greedy. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Why was the employer mandate suspended then as it was to be a vital funding mechanism? What is the reason? Who is really owned by Corporations? And how in your mind can the President just unilaterally rewrite law? But really who cares what Jassik or I have to say on it. Wouldn't it be nice if the President would actually take some questions instead of giving pathetic dishonest speeches? He knows he cannot answer why Corporations get exempt for a year from the law but individual Americans don't. Corporations provide insurance for their workers, more than likely, it was to give corporations a year to review their coverage to see if it complied. However, individuals who are not given the option of employer coverage still need health insurance coverage in some form for this to work. Aeltorian Ausrillius said: » There was a question on the last page directed towards someone else but I have to interject with my opinion; Odin.Jassik said: » Do you have something against "capitalism"? Yes. Taking something that is freely available and then turn it around and sell it for pure profit gain is just greedy. Some would argue that greed is a motivator. It's obviously more complex than that, but it's the fundamental basis of the free market. Selling something that's free is the pinnacle of free market capitalism. Look at bottled water... I believe that greed causes eventual blind corruption and business mishaps.
Odin.Jassik said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » lol, Bush never passed a budget during his entire failed presidency. I can't really say I'm a fan of Bush, but he did maintain the office and preserve the republic.... Technically the only presidents who have faced a legitimate threat to the republic are James Madison and Abraham Lincoln. Even Truman didn't face the imminent destruction that they did. I definitely wouldn't call Bush's presidency a success, though.... waitaminuethere There was an imminent danger of the government being OVERTHROWN? By whom? How? Why didn't I hear about it? Links please. Garuda.Chanti said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » lol, Bush never passed a budget during his entire failed presidency. I can't really say I'm a fan of Bush, but he did maintain the office and preserve the republic.... Technically the only presidents who have faced a legitimate threat to the republic are James Madison and Abraham Lincoln. Even Truman didn't face the imminent destruction that they did. I definitely wouldn't call Bush's presidency a success, though.... waitaminuethere There was an imminent danger of the government being OVERTHROWN? By whom? How? Why didn't I hear about it? Links please. No I said that Madison and Lincoln are the only presidents that faced a legitimate threat to the republic, though I guess the phrasing was somewhat grey. I'm making the point that the only way you can actually call a presidency a failure is if they fail in their primary tasks. And only 2 presidents have honestly met the standard of preserving the republic in a legitimate threat. But all of them thus far have succeeded in preserving the republic.
[+]
Aeltorian Ausrillius said: » I believe that greed causes eventual blind corruption and business mishaps. I'm inclined to agree. But the keyword is "unchecked" greed. Greed is good as long as it is contained. Sadly, the corporate interests have unparalleled access to our lawmakers and disgusting amounts of leverage in policy decisions. Look at the Ag bill written by Monsanto that was slipped in anonymously and shelters them from any future legislation. That is unchecked greed, and it's detestable. Veterans breach the barricades as Washington sends its workers home
Old soldiers ignore closure but majority of tourists find sites shuttered as government workers wonder how to pay their bills Quote: The 92 elderly war veterans who had travelled to Washington from the gulf coast of Mississippi were not going to let a manufactured political row in the United States Congress prevent them from paying tribute to their comrades. They had come thousands of miles in four tour buses, many in wheelchairs, most of them frail, and all of them determined not to be held back by the barriers that closed off the World War II memorial. Who let them past the barriers was unclear. The Stars and Stripes reporter said a congressman distracted a park police officer while other lawmakers and their staff moved the barricades aside. A cheer went up, and the men surged forward in an act of civil disobedience that captured growing public anger towards a dysfunctional Congress. Edit: also in article Quote: Furloughed employees were asked to sign copies of a letter from their human resources departments and ordered not to used any government equipment - including BlackBerrys - during the shutdown. Checking emails or making calls would be a disciplinary offence, they were were told. The mayor of DC, Vincent Gray, declared all city staff as "essential" workers, a legally contentious measure. But it at least kept the city moving, and guarded America's capital from some of the more unpleasant consequences of the last shutdown in the mid-1990s, when trash was not collected and piled up on the street.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Fumiku said: » Odin.Jassik said: » because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills. If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason. So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane. The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it. I agree, that it was impossible to implement in that time frame. However have you went online and actually ran though the process? I am looking at $150 a month to $300 a month for coverage going though the health exchange. I am also looking at a $3000 deductible. These numbers by the way, are ridiculous... Currently My employer offer coverage, thank god, but if they didn't I would have to shell out an extra $100 a month (not including the deductible which is around $3000) because the law only applies to the individual at the time. Why would I go to the doctor if I have to pay 3k unless I know for sure it is something major? I think that is a good reason to delay the individual mandate. Nikolce is gonna be so pissed when he sees what we did to his thread :(
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Nikolce is gonna be so pissed when he sees what we did to his thread :( He was crackin' me up.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Nikolce is gonna be so pissed when he sees what we did to his thread :( no way! I had the best day ever yesterday....
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 4th, the tea party claims responsibility for not funding the ACA, sure. The senate (led by democrats) is the one which is refusing to fund the rest of the government without the ACA as well. They are refusing to negotiate an act that has been passed and ruled constitutional more than 3 dozen times as a condition for upholding the full faith and credit of the US Government. That's a HUGE distinction from that pile of crap you just posted. Which is within his power and discretion to do and it has nothing to do with your participation award view of public policy. Does he send a thrill up your leg too? He completely lacked the power to simply delay a law passed by congress. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 4th, the tea party claims responsibility for not funding the ACA, sure. The senate (led by democrats) is the one which is refusing to fund the rest of the government without the ACA as well. They are refusing to negotiate an act that has been passed and ruled constitutional more than 3 dozen times as a condition for upholding the full faith and credit of the US Government. That's a HUGE distinction from that pile of crap you just posted. Which is within his power and discretion to do and it has nothing to do with your participation award view of public policy. Does he send a thrill up your leg too? He completely lacked the power to simply delay a law passed by congress. Make a gay joke and backward analogy. Seriously, what are you 10 years old?
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 1) Correct. Largely based on income. This isn't news. 2) The subsidy, in essence, replaces the current contribution the federal government makes towards its employee's coverage thereby maintaining the status quo for said employees. I was mistaken when I typed it was the same subsidy offered to the uninsured. It is actually more analogous to the contribution any employer makes when they offer coverage through employment, and it addresses the differential treatment that congressional employees get due to how the law applies differently to them and them only. Congress is not exempt from the law. It actually is designed to apply to them more strictly. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan (Now I can't be accused of posting only liberally-biased sources.) http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-special-subsidy-for-congress/ 3) The Senate rejected the amended bill, drafted by Republicans, that would deny any subsidies from being offered to congress and staffers. All because they want to make an example of them. How noble. Any takers on how much Congress and the top of the executive branch make? I betcha they make beyond the limit of that subsidy cap. I understand the grunts on their staffs probably don't but this subsidy still applies to them. They are still covered, and God forbid they all take a pay cut. Most of us are about to get royally screwed and get a huge pay cut. This whole system was designed to fail. Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » 4th, the tea party claims responsibility for not funding the ACA, sure. The senate (led by democrats) is the one which is refusing to fund the rest of the government without the ACA as well. They are refusing to negotiate an act that has been passed and ruled constitutional more than 3 dozen times as a condition for upholding the full faith and credit of the US Government. That's a HUGE distinction from that pile of crap you just posted. Which is within his power and discretion to do and it has nothing to do with your participation award view of public policy. Does he send a thrill up your leg too? He completely lacked the power to simply delay a law passed by congress. Make a gay joke and backward analogy. Seriously, what are you 10 years old? It's not a gay joke, its a political "kool-aid" joke. No one believes Mathews (who originally said it) is sexually attracted to Obama, he's just so far in his camp that nothing Obama could ever do would could ever dispel the belief in his ideology. Sorta like... YOU. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
