Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 92     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #151 
FIB - Try to get Obamacare out of your head for a minute.  We the people have been for mandates, pitching in, contributing as you go, etc., for years and years now.  SS and Medicare show this clearly.  Mandating people to buy insurance is an old GOP position and an idea developed by the Heritage foundation.  It was Democrats who tried to find an alternative solution to mandates, with regards to universal health care, but failed.  Actually, they probably leaned towards single payer which would, in effect, be a mandate for everyone. 

We could go round and round confusing our two positions with Obamacare itself but, in the end, I believe society has clearly shown the "dire consequence" approach is not a reasonable solution when it comes to addressing those refusing self reliance.  There is no poll suggesting otherwise.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #152 
Golf anyone???
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #153 
In your opinion, is it acceptable practice to not put the Government funding bill passed by the Senate up for a vote in the House?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #154 
How about a more general question?  Should either congressional arm obstruct?  Harry Reid invented obstructionism.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/reid-blocks-own-immigration-bill-house-vote/

http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255-mcconnell-calls-for-vote-on-obamas-ridiculous-deficit-reduction-plan

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/02/harry-reid-says-no-budget-vote-this-year/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272528/senate-blocks-vote-cut-cap-and-balance-andrew-stiles

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/03/harry-reid-decided-to-block-votes-to-make-sensible-sequester-cuts-2607204.html
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #155 
If the House passes a bill, that the President will sign, and the Senate chooses not to vote, it's obstruction.  Please tell me where this has happened.  If the Senate passes a bill, that the President will sign, and the House refuses to vote, it's obstruction.  The CR on the table is a prime example.  Immigration reform may be another.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #156 
I believe the way it works is that the House passes a spending bill, the Senate does its thing, then they conference and compromise.

I do not believe there is a requirement for one side to pass the other side's bill without the conference.

I believe that Boehner has requested conference proceedings, and Grandpa Obstruction that runs the Senate has said no - acquiesce completely or the shutdown continues. 

Now, one side is calling the other side "anarchists", "extortionists", "terrorists", "arsonists", and the other side is asking for a conference per the usual rules of engagement.

Who exactly created the shutdown again?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #157 
If the President and Senate agree on a budget, both vote in favor while the House votes against, no budget, and while it's obstruction, it's fair obstruction.  If the President and Senate both disagree on a House bill or a budget, the Senate refusing to vote on it is not obstruction because it wasn't going anywhere anyway.

If the President and Senate both agree on a clean CR and the House votes against, it's obstruction but fair obstruction.  If the House refuses to even vote on the clean CR, it's very unfair obstruction.  Easy for me to follow.

By the way mikec, Republicans in the Senate blocked the conference on budget.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #158 
When was the last time the Senate and President agreed on a budget?  I'm not talking about a CR - i'm talking about a budget for an entire year.  The last real budget was passed in 2009.  Where does that fit on the fair/unfair spectrum?
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #159 
Um, no.

You are interjecting the Prince of America (POTUS) and his Court Jester (Reid) into the mix.

The process is this:

The Administration proposes a budget.  The House considers it, and passes its own series of appropriations bills.  The Senate then considers those bills, and passes them or amends them.  Then, the House and Senate appoint conferees, who work out a compromise.  The compromise is then passed in both houses, and goes to the President to sign or veto.

If he signs, then it's law.  If he vetoes, they override of they start over.

There is no CR bullcrap in the process.  That has become a way of life over the past 5 years because the Prince and his Court Jester refuse to play by the rules.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #160 
Rather than get bogged down in "budgets" versus "bills", change budget in my last post to laws or bills.  My point remains the same.  If two agree on something and the third votes against, it's obstruction but it's fair under our system.  If two agree on something and the third refuses to even vote, virtually shutting down any chance of passage, it's both obstruction and unfair from my perspective.  The House is refusing to vote on something that would pass if they simply allowed the vote.  Very unfair, imo.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #161 
Your book is your book, but it has  very little to do with the Constitutional process that used to be important prior to the 44th President took office.

I used work in this process.  It was tough, and imperfect, but it was the process. 

That was then, this is now.  No budgets, no appropriations bills, just Reid and Pelosi circumventing our Constitutional process to carry Obama's water.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #162 
Dewey - your whole post is pointless.  If it's obstruction but you deem it to be fair obstruction, so what?  If it's all done according to the rules, it might be obstruction or not and those of us on each side of the political spectrum will deem it fair or unfair but what difference does it make?  Apologies to Hillary.

The Republicans first wanted full repeal.  Then they wanted to defund.  Then they wanted to delay.  Then they wanted to delay only the personal mandate.  Three times they've moved off their position idiotically negotiating with themselves while Obama sits on his hands.  Is it fair that Obama won't even enter into a dialogue and essentially just says "Screw you, it's my way or the highway?"  I don't think it's fair but I don't expect you to agree or care that I think it's unfair.  It is what it is.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #163 
pabar - The reason you can't find the point is because you refused to answer the question.  Please give your answer and then we'll see if the point becomes more clear.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #164 
I can find the point just fine and I appreciate your continued condescending attitude.  Your question is another straw man question.  Each of us could think of 100 questions to ask the other side and get into yet another stalemate waiting for each other's answers.  Both sides engage in trickery and maneuvering to try to gain an advantage and your attempt to get people on the record with regard to one instance is disingenuous.  Reid won't even put Obama's budget up for a vote.  As soon as the Democrats don't engage in any shenanigans, i'll be happy to answer your question.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Reid won't even put Obama's budget up for a vote. 


Two things.  One is right here, complaining about the Senate not voting but not a word about the House doing the same.  Happens all the time around here.  Yes, I try to get you on record but it's like pulling teeth.  I think of it this way..."We can't give a position on this now because we want to have it available to attack you on it later."  Incredible.  Secondly, please give me one of those 100 questions.  I'm always game to go on the record and I'm ready to be stumped.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
...and I'm ready to be stumped.


pabar - OK, sorry.  That's a bit over the top and not a post I'm truly proud of.  That said, I do try to ask fair questions and, I agree, they are often intended to keep one from having the ability to attack when one side does something while staying mum when their own side does similar.  I do try to get some on record and I am willing to answer and put myself on record as well.

The question about the NIH going around today is an example of an unfair question.  It's like me asking, "If one child's life could be saved, would you support Obamacare then?"  I wouldn't find this to be a fair question and I hope this doesn't represent the kind you think I generally ask.  Anyway, sorry for the post with the not too subtle provocation.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #167 
Sean Hannity just told a sitting Congressman he is full of crap.  Yes, the first Amendment gives him that right.  Makes me wonder how long I'll wait until the next person claims President Obama is trying to destroy the Republican Party.  What a recruitment team the GOP has working for them.  Geez.  (No question, just smh.)
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #168 
shake it, shake it like a Polaroid picture
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #169 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Sean Hannity just told a sitting Congressman he is full of crap.  Yes, the first Amendment gives him that right.  Makes me wonder how long I'll wait until the next person claims President Obama is trying to destroy the Republican Party.  What a recruitment team the GOP has working for them.  Geez.  (No question, just smh.)


Because the Congressman repeatedly refused to admit that he receives a government subsidy for his health care insurance from the federal government. Point blank lied, and said that he didn't get a subsidy. That's when Sean told him he was full of crap.

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #170 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Sean Hannity just told a sitting Congressman he is full of crap.  Yes, the first Amendment gives him that right.  Makes me wonder how long I'll wait until the next person claims President Obama is trying to destroy the Republican Party.  What a recruitment team the GOP has working for them.  Geez.  (No question, just smh.)


Because the Congressman repeatedly refused to admit that he receives a government subsidy for his health care insurance from the federal government. Point blank lied, and said that he didn't get a subsidy. That's when Sean told him he was full of crap.


Well, first Dewey implies that Ibama doesn't want to destroy the Republican Party, and then a Dem Congressman refuses to admit his health care is subsidized by taxpayers. What planet are liberals living on these days?

Planet Obama, apparently. Here's an article on how badly Obama is communicating lately. Reality doesn't fit his agenda these days.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/10/03/obamas-communications-team-needs-an-intervention/


Ex:
But then, we can’t assume too much about the president’s knowledge of the budgeting process. A few days earlier, the president said this:

As for not letting America pay its bills, I have to say, no Congress before this one has ever – ever — in history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shutdown, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a President into giving them some concessions on issues that have nothing to do with a budget.

Does the president actually think ObamaCare has nothing to do with the budget? He sounded like he believed that line, which is fairly disturbing. As National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke noted:

This is a law, remember, that was crowbarred through Congress with the questionable use of reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure that is reserved exclusively for budgetary matters; a law that was sold as a deficit-reduction measure; a law that contains a significant spending component, including a 5-10 percent increase in the size of the federal budget; and, alas, a law that boasts a central mandate that was upheld (rewritten) by the Supreme Court as a tax, thus ensuring that any changes to the penalties must be approved by the House.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #171 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody


Because the Congressman repeatedly refused to admit that he receives a government subsidy for his health care insurance from the federal government. Point blank lied, and said that he didn't get a subsidy.


woody - FactCheckorg says it's not a subsidy.  This article says no special treatment.  This USA article points out Congressman have always had a significant portion of their insurance paid and this will continue despite the fact we're forcing them into the exchanges.

Before we go back and forth, let's see where our definitions agree or disagree.  Did Congress members have their health insurance subsidized during the Bush years?  Answer this and we can see if there is any merit to this argument.

Finally, if one believes FactCheckorg and doesn't believe Hannity, does that make them full of crap?  Never mind, if you're only going to answer one question, please tell us if you believe Congress members received a subsidy for their health insurance prior to 2008.  Thanks.

PS:  I do think the "full of crap" comment will pad Hannity's pocket, whether we call it subsidy or not. [wink]
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #172 
Hannity is not elected.

What do you have to say about the Senate Majority leader, and the House Minority leader, calling their colleagues extortionist, arsonists, and terrorists?

That seem to me to be a much bigger deal than anything Hannity has to say.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #173 
The only difference between me and hannity is that he said crap and I would have told him he was full of shiiit

woody, dewdy has another semantics question, for you this time

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #174 
mikec - I think these terms are being used metaphorically.  Show me individual and exact quotes if you want me to respond.  If you refuse to allow the Government to operate until they agree to "x", that seems to match the definition of "political" extortion.  I believe you're stretching a bit to make a case and, at the same time, excusing almost everyone else of their behavior. 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #175 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody


Because the Congressman repeatedly refused to admit that he receives a government subsidy for his health care insurance from the federal government. Point blank lied, and said that he didn't get a subsidy.


woody - FactCheckorg says it's not a subsidy.  This article says no special treatment.  This USA article points out Congressman have always had a significant portion of their insurance paid and this will continue despite the fact we're forcing them into the exchanges.

Before we go back and forth, let's see where our definitions agree or disagree.  Did Congress members have their health insurance subsidized during the Bush years?  Answer this and we can see if there is any merit to this argument.

Finally, if one believes FactCheckorg and doesn't believe Hannity, does that make them full of crap?  Never mind, if you're only going to answer one question, please tell us if you believe Congress members received a subsidy for their health insurance prior to 2008.  Thanks.

PS:  I do think the "full of crap" comment will pad Hannity's pocket, whether we call it subsidy or not. [wink]


Woody, here's some more information re that Purposely deceptive "FactCheck" article, I had posted in another thread: ( basic lib semantics fallback when their bs is exposed - so transparently obviously wrong -maybe that's what Obama meant lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
The "special treatment" that Fact Check failed to mention on the exemption for Congress and Obamacare. When lawmakers shop for insurance knowing they only have to pay 25% of the cost, that's not playing by the same rules as the people they are subjecting to the law they passed.

No 'Exemption' for Congress? 75% of Health Insurance Premiums Paid for by Taxpayers

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/83272-exemption-congress-try-75-health-insurance-premiums-paid-taxpayers/

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #176 
Dewey, before you argue that they have always gotten that subsidy, these is a new plan with new rules, forced upon Americans. Lawmakers who passed the law should have to play by the same rules. Couldn't be more simple.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #177 
FIB - Is your answer that prior to 2008 Congress members got a subsidy for health insurance?  Just for once, yes or no.  Thanks.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #178 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - Is your answer that prior to 2008 Congress members got a subsidy for health insurance?  Just for once, yes or no.  Thanks.


Well I can't answer yes or no because I don't know when they got the subsidy. So sorry, not even this once Professor Kommandant Demando.


But that subsidy is the bone of contention, no matter what you call it. And if we all can't get it under the NEW LAW with NEW RULES then lawmakers shouldn't get it either.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #179 
[1383290_10153346693625515_227413808_n]
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #180 
FIB - Are you just messing with me or do you not know our Congress members have had most of their health insurance paid for as part of their compensation?  Now that you know this, would you call this a subsidy?  Let me put it another way.  I'll assume your employer pays a good portion of your health insurance costs.  If I'm right, (if I'm not think of a friend where this analogy might apply), is their contribution a subsidy, from your perspective?  Can you answer this one?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.