joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Hey look folks, DS has de-evolved back to a 6th grader's mentality and emotional level. Seriously, it is B.S., PERIOD. Otherwise, the Democrats can and will do it, and you'll have NO GROUNDS to bitch about it. Now or in the future. Isnt it the normal conservative mantra to bitch that Goverment does nothing? Well, here's an example of the Republican House doing absolutely nothing, while its potential voters (that's you, DS) defend their actions. While at the same time bitching about the Goverment doing nothing.
I'm not bitching about Government doing nothing. Hell, I want Government to stop doing so much. You're not even paying attention.
I do believe when I wrote the above it was in reference to a concept that I'll explain metaphorically: The Train's wheels go 'round and round' but the train doesn't move an inch. You stated (again, metaphorically) that you were in favor of this. I do not like things not getting done or accomplished in Congress. In fact, the longer Congress remains in chaos and gridlock, the more it effects the US Economy. Thw two really are linked in that when Congress is in flux, it creates uncertainity for many US Businesses that do business with the US Goverment. I dont want the Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else 'fraking around' with our resources. Hence, I consider trying to send a bill, the Republicans knew ahead of time didnt have a prayer of passing in any of the thirty-one attempts to be a waste of resources. I would have expected conservatives to agree with me on this issue (since they seem 'big' on the concept of goverment wasteful spending). Apparently, I'm wrong....
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I didnt say the elected offical have to; I said *YOU* have to hold them to twice the level. It would be nice if Republicans (and some Democrats) would do that. But ultimately it is up to the voter to decide if the elected offical did a good job for being accountible and responsible with power when they vote. That mindset doesnt enter into most people's head to be frank.
Seriously? You expect me to argue counter to that?!? Hell, we agree, again! Too many brain dead voters rely on name recognition alone to decide who to pull the levers for (and, yes, I do realize that lever pulling to vote probably doesn't happen too much anymore). Too many people decide who is going to give them the most, instead of who is going to do the best for the country. Too many people are completely ignorant on the beliefs of the candidates.
I dont like former Gov. Mitt Romney, not because he's a Mormon, or worked at Bain Capital, or running under the Republican ticket. I dont see him as being a 'mindless conservative idiot doing what the GOP tells him to do' (i.e. Rick Perry). Nor do I think he is full of bad ideas. The guy did one good thing (Mass Health), but it was the last year of his term that I take issue over. He went to several different states to test the waters about a possible presidental run and needed supporters. He bad-mouthed the Commonwealth 'up one lane and down another'. You dont bad mouth the people you represent; thats just being disrespectful (its a two way street). I and others in Mass have had to learn the hard way how Mr. Romney operates around public office. Unlike the Kennedys whom do it out of some 'noble aspiration' (I'm sure conservatives have plenty of 'colorful' ways of explaining it), Mr. Romney is a political whore (say anything and do anything to get elected). Such an individual in the White House would be only trouble for this country. He'll polarize the nation's voters in ways we REALLY dont want to go.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If you can not do that fairly, DS, than your announcing yourself as an 'ideological hypnocrit'. Question is, are you? Or realize that I too have to hold myself to the same standard? I read the bill (all 934 pages). Its dry, boring, dull, and easily got me to sleep for a few nights. I like most of it, but feel the ACA should be a better law. But you never read the document, to which your against, even though the contents of it will undoubtably aid you in your future level to several degrees more than it will hinder you (if at all). Yeap, doesnt make logical sense to me.
Here's the thing. It doesn't matter if it's going to benefit me or not. It's not Constitutional. I'll even go further and say that Congress isn't allowed to tax for simply anything. There has to be a Constitutional authority the tax is being collected for. For instance, they can't tax people who drive white cars simply because they want to. There is no Constitutional authority for the tax to be collected. It isn't being collected to fund a Constitutional program.
I do think the US Supreme Court ruled recently that it was....Constitutional. And I maybe wrong, but aren't they the highest judicial group in America? Sen. Rand Paul recently stated that just because the US Supreme Court states soemthing is Constitutional, its not. Well, Rand Paul is unfortunately.....wrong. For example, DS, may Democrats state George W. Bush winning in Florida back in 2000 was unconstitutional; however, the highest court in the land ruled the matter Constitutional.
To answer your question, there is a 'Constitutional Authority' in the USA: Congress. They are the ones that make the rules, and set the standards. They are the ones that create the bills by which things are done big and small in this nation. The famous '9/11 Commision' and the 'Super Committee for the Budget 2011' were both creations of Congress. There ability to act in this and other matters is Consitutional. Congress can create a tax to be applied to Americans (i.e. the income tax which has been unheld in courts time and again). Here is where it confuses most people. Every law must be created fairly across the board to all citizens. Which is why the federal income tax (and most state income taxes) is set up the way it is. Since someone making $35K/year will suffer more from a 'flat tax rate' of 29% (which you might remeber was Herman Cain's proposal back last year) when compared to someone that makes $150K/year. Yes, in both instances, 29% is a heckuva alot of money. But given costs and the economic situation, the $35K/year person would feel the burden much deeper.
It really is a hard concept for people to grasp and stay objective of, even on the subjects that bring out strong emotions in people. The Founding Fathers really hit on a very wise feature of the US Constitution. Its just to bad many people within this nation remain ignorant of the concept. I hope I've given you the 'bare bones' understanding of the philosophy. I'm not a lawyer nor a Consitutional Scholar (but our President is!).
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Its hard to take your arguement seriously, when you just stated the exact opposite above.
In another post, you stated:
quote:
Since I tend to agree with the man, I dont find very much wasted.
We obviously agree that if we support the actions, we don't consider it wasted money, time, etc. Thus, I don't see this as willy nilly spending.
If the Republicans pushed that bill once in protest, and failed, fine. They made their point like gentlemen and can say so in the fall elections. Doing it thirty-one times? Come on, that's just plain B.S. That's not being a gentleman statesmen, that's being an asshole about it. Shouldnt we expect more for our elected officals? This is the sort of behavior I would expect in children, not grown adults, easily twenty years past their teenage years!
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
HOLY COW! Are you REALLY this ignorant on US Civics? There are not two houses. There is the US House of Representatives.....AND....The US Senate. Come on, DS, your not even remotely this dumb!
<snort> Dude, really? Yeah, I know there is a House of Rep's and then the Senate. Yes, I should have stated there are two branches of the legislative branch, or two chambers. It's sad, really, to see how you have to really grasp for shit to knock my assertions.
I figured that was the case....BUT....you did make it sound like you weren't explaining it correctly. So I apologize in that regard.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
There are two sentators from each state (that go to the US Senate). And the number of representatives is based on the population as determine by the US Census every ten years (or districts changed). In order for a bill to be approved it must go through the process listed in the OP. AFTER it gains approval by the US Senate, it would go to the White House and approved by the President. Unless of course, both the House and Senate approved the bill with so much support that it goes above the President's veto powers.
You want to be picky? Fine. There are not "two sentators" from each state, but senators. You have also not completely accurately stated the procedures for passing a bill. The strength of the majority in favor of a bill has no bearing on whether or not the bill is sent to the President for approval. If the President vetoes it (and is supposed to inform the House and Senate as to why he vetoed it), then there can be another vote in both houses to over-ride the veto. The bill can also be amended to align with the President's thinking, and put back up for votes in both chambers, and sent back to the President if both chambers pass the bill.
There's going to be a test on this material for all the rest of you slackers!
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
So if the Republicans REALLY want to defund the Affordable Care Act, and not just 'fuck around 31 times'. They have to get the US Senate to approve of the bill. Since the US Senate is controlled by the Democrats, that is not very likely to happen. And if that happened, do you REALLY think the President wouldnt veto the bill?
I know the President would veto the bill. What happens, though, when the House and Senate pass the bill (taking the assumption the Senate passes the bill)? What happens if Democrats support the repeal bill (as 5 did this time 'round)?
The President will not veto the bill. Republicans would have a field day over it. So 'no', that's not going to happen in this reality....keep dreaming! Democrats as a whole will not support a bill that benefits the people they represent. Some will do it, but look at the location of those folks. I'm willing to guess they are running for election in tight races, and need 're-election' material more than anything else. Devil's in the Details, right?
One bill, reasonable and protested noted. Thirty-one times? Absurd waste of resources. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for doing it. Or even thinking it was 'a good idea at the time'. You wouldnt like it if Democrats did it, right? Neither would I! Which is WHY I created this thread. The standard should apply fairly across the board!
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What you are saying is that people are being bribed into agreeing with the bill. That is flat out wrong. When R's do it, you will have no problem calling them on it. You shouldn't have any problem with it either, and neither will I. But, to turn your head when the D's do it is simply partisanship at it's finest. Or worst. You know what I'm saying.
How many times did the Democrats (and the President) push to make the ACA a reality from start to finish? Once. It was over fourteen mouths ending in March of 2010 (when the vote took place and signed at the White House into law). Conservatives were 'foaming at the mouth' angery about it. Its all there, in the recent history books. Now imagine if the Democrats did it thirty-one times, each time believing the Republicans would give their blessings on it? Conservatives would be rioting in the streets with guns in their hands! Unless of course you wish to disagree with me that, that would not happen after the 31st attempt (much less the 3rd attempt)?
No one is brided into agreeing to anything (as far as I know). Democrats went with the ACA because it helps them with the voters. Republicans did their protest bill, because it helps with their voters. No problem with either one. But that, as I've already stated, isnt the problem here. The problem is doing it over and over again, just to be dicks. That should NEVER be condoned as acceptable behavior by ANYONE in goverment!
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
<snort> You have no fucking clue if Obamacare is benefiting me. That's the funny part. And, I don't expect you to tell me how. A bank robbery, in and of itself, has nothing to do with Obamacare, but the point I was making was that regardless of how something benefits me, if it's wrong, it's wrong. And, Obamacare is wrong.
Your absolutely right, I dont. But given the knowledge of the human body, an educated guess on your age, location in the world, and a few other facts; I could guess that as you get older things within you will start to break down (thats medical science). We dont get younger as we get older unfortunately. There is no 'fountain of youth'. As you get older, there will be more problems of a medical nature. Do you wish to pay double digit increases year after year for the next thirty years? For quite a few years before the ACA was put into the public eye, this was a reality for many Americans in the country. So the ACA put a stop to it. Those over the age of 50 can access a wide range of screenings regardless of insurance converage for very little if any cost to the individual. And we know in medical science that after 50, our bodies become more subseptible to illnesses and conditions great and small.
Do you think its a wise idea to to let the insurance 'for profit' companies decide this stuff? Or would you rather the citizens of the nation make the rules? Masschusetts did it, and it works really well. It pains me to see those states with the worst health care in the nation, are the ones most direly against getting better care for its citizens. It just doesnt make rational, logical, or even conscious sense.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
LMAO!! The Democrat's willingness to compromise in Obama's first 2 years was this: "We'll compromise by telling you what we want to do and you accept it." That's not compromise. That's bullshit. And, then, when the R's decide to not go along with the compromise set out by the D's, they are vilified as not being willing to compromise.
Did it even occur to you WHY President Obama didnt just ram stuff through, without regard for the Republicans? But instead tried to go across the isle to get things bi-paritisan? George W. Bush did it in the first six years of his administration, it created huge amounts of anger. A level of anger that was dangerous for any sitting president to deal with. He wanted to be different and actually get the input from Republicans. But at that time, Republicans were 'The Party of No' (as they got dubbed). I remember very distinctly watching that little contest of wills when Mr. Obama asked the GOP the straight up question, and their list of answers. I recall behing annoyed that Democrats put the material into the document and sent it to the House and Senate to be voted on. To which the Republicans went back on their word (which was catch on cameria and video). I'm sure if we search long enough, it can be found on youtube.com.
Recall also, that in the first few years AFTER 9/11, Republicans had set things to the tone that if the Democrats resisted or tried to stop the President or their plans, it would be seen as un-American. And the Republicans implied they would use their misinformation machines to show that Democrats were making the country weak and open to another attack. Its around the time of "We have to hit them there, or we'll be attacked here" became famous. Republicans did this 'villifying' business first, and it was really...bad....for the nation's best interests. They are also the ones that signed off on torturing people 'for the hell of it'.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Ah, here we now have our disagreement on a bill relegated to an economics lesson (that doesn't even apply)? Seriously, dude. I'm not selling you anything. You aren't selling me anything. We have no basis for a need to know what the other wants. But, to carry your misplaced example out and put it on the D's and R's, when the price the D's want is higher than the R's are willing to pay, and the barter offer the R's put up isn't of sufficient value to the D's, no sale takes place.
Your trying to sell me on the idea that its 'ok' for a major political party to protest something they dont like, by issuing a bill with extremely minor changes, 31 times, fully knowing the bill would fail in the Senate each time, and expect me to accept that behavior as 'ok'. BUT, if the Democrats do the same stunt twice, you'd bitch up a class 18 hurricane (even though hurricanes have just five classes of intensities). An I'm not buying the bullshit, because it is bullshit. And I dont buy bullshit.
So could you tell me where all the WMDs we were suppose to find in Iraq down the nanaosecond? Cus I, like you, have to pay off that $4 Trillion dollar debt (plus interest) that was raised under the George W. Bush fantasy....
|
RE: GOP Wastes Money; Conservatives stay Ignorant - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread