Thread Rating:
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
10-19-2013, 01:06 PM
"Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare. This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act)is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality. But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare. Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants? If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government. When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called. Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt. Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose."
-Thomas Sowell
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare. This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act)is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality. But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare. Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants? If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government. When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called. Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt. Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose."
-Thomas Sowell
10-19-2013, 03:28 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:"Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare. This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act)is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality. But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare. Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants? If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government. When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called. Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt. Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose."
-Thomas Sowell
so if all the money is controlled by the house then the Republicans should get some of the blame on the deficit?
10-19-2013, 03:39 PM
^ And setting aside many of the reasons that have come to the fore of late, as to how as Sowell has said, "the country will lose", such as the national debt. Well, let me back up for just a second where the debt is concerned. The impending debt crisis could be analogized as follows; you're on a beach and off in the not too far distance is a 100 foot high tsunami. Now, said tsunami is still miles away and though clearly visible, motion is not yet discernible even though it is coming right for you at high speed.
Further, there are two lifeguards there with you on the beach. One (a novice Democrat lifeguard, whose boss told him tsunamis never come to this beach) is telling you not to worry everything will be alright. The other, (a far more experienced Republican lifeguard) is telling you to run or die. Now folks, a 100 foot high tsunami is not one iota more real a threat to all of us beach-bound-observers, than is the 17 Trillion dollar debt we all face. That's why I refer to those who are being led around by their noses by liberal voices telling them not to worry, as lemmings. If you insist on being a follower, you better darn well find out at least where you're headed. And I can say with out any doubt, not taking the 17 Trillion dollar debt seriously (3 more trillion is coming before the merciful end of the Obama era BTW), will lead to a fiscal cliff at some point soon. In fact, like the tsunami that is visible but, still far enough away so as the shallow and naïve among us can still feel comfortable, that cliff looms visibly in our relative near future.
But, why were Democrats (and complicit RINO's) willing to take us to the brink of that cliff during the shut down? I believe they need the extra money to finance their plans to initiate blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Entitlements, voter registration, education, housing, job training etc. etc. will cost many billions of dollars for all these people. They're calling it immigration reform. All it is, is blanket amnesty. The makers, takers, bomb makers, long time visa fugitives one and all, will suddenly find themselves hooked up to the golden goose via what I call, a government sponsored invasion. We're talking about burdening the working class of this country with all the worries of untold millions of new entitlement addicts, along with the 50 million or so who we are obligated to feed as it is, is.
Heck, why would anybody ever consider a military assault on America? All they'd need to do is pay off somebody in Mexico to allow them to land millions of peaceful invaders on their shore and just march them across our southern border. After that, they just need to disperse and sign up for somewhere around 100 thousand dollars worth of free goodies a year. And if they manage to stick around long enough, liberals will eventually gain enough power to have the darn government adopt them for life.
Further, there are two lifeguards there with you on the beach. One (a novice Democrat lifeguard, whose boss told him tsunamis never come to this beach) is telling you not to worry everything will be alright. The other, (a far more experienced Republican lifeguard) is telling you to run or die. Now folks, a 100 foot high tsunami is not one iota more real a threat to all of us beach-bound-observers, than is the 17 Trillion dollar debt we all face. That's why I refer to those who are being led around by their noses by liberal voices telling them not to worry, as lemmings. If you insist on being a follower, you better darn well find out at least where you're headed. And I can say with out any doubt, not taking the 17 Trillion dollar debt seriously (3 more trillion is coming before the merciful end of the Obama era BTW), will lead to a fiscal cliff at some point soon. In fact, like the tsunami that is visible but, still far enough away so as the shallow and naïve among us can still feel comfortable, that cliff looms visibly in our relative near future.
But, why were Democrats (and complicit RINO's) willing to take us to the brink of that cliff during the shut down? I believe they need the extra money to finance their plans to initiate blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Entitlements, voter registration, education, housing, job training etc. etc. will cost many billions of dollars for all these people. They're calling it immigration reform. All it is, is blanket amnesty. The makers, takers, bomb makers, long time visa fugitives one and all, will suddenly find themselves hooked up to the golden goose via what I call, a government sponsored invasion. We're talking about burdening the working class of this country with all the worries of untold millions of new entitlement addicts, along with the 50 million or so who we are obligated to feed as it is, is.
Heck, why would anybody ever consider a military assault on America? All they'd need to do is pay off somebody in Mexico to allow them to land millions of peaceful invaders on their shore and just march them across our southern border. After that, they just need to disperse and sign up for somewhere around 100 thousand dollars worth of free goodies a year. And if they manage to stick around long enough, liberals will eventually gain enough power to have the darn government adopt them for life.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
10-24-2013, 10:38 PM
In post #24 above, I mentioned that the US debt would pass the 17 trillion dollar mark in a matter of days. That was on Tuesday, October 14. Ironically, by Thursday the 17th, we had blown past 17 trillion and presently the total is more than 72.5 billion higher than that. We rack up a million dollars in debt every 27 seconds. But, according to our president, "we don't have a debt problem in this country." LOL right, and the problems with the ObamaCare website are attributable to higher than expected demand, all 126 thousand of them.
It's laughable to recall comments on here from the past which blasted George W. for putting this nation in "a hole", with his 5 trillion dollar debt tab. So far in the last 5 years, we've racked up 7 trillion more in debt under this administration and we're on pace to add a total of 10 trillion by 2016. Many economists insist that number will be more like 12 trillion and I can see why, when one factors in ObamaMath. example; website costs 94 million = 634 million actual = 1 billion plus after incredible comedy of errors that nobody will take responsible for. If this serves as any example, ObamaCare will cost more than 10 times what we were told.
Unbelievably, I actually heard a guy for the Democrats come on TV today and blame the Republicans for the website debacle along with everything else, because they would like to see ObamaCare repealed. Republicans were excluded from the get go. Obama came to power with a super majority and were subsequently locked out of all negotiations and all debate to do with ObamaCare in both the upper and lower houses of congress. They've been denied any input whatever from the first day until the past couple of days when the administration finally were forced to admit publicly that the thing is a flop. So, since Republicans haven't been allowed to so much as dot one I in the 2700 page monstrosity which is ObamaCare, they incur absolutely no blame whatever.
BTW, if the dunderheaded Democrats would have allowed government to function as is instructed in the US Constitution and from among the founding documents, including Federalist #58, and 237 years of Congressional record by allowing duly elected Republicans to participate, maybe the darn website would have worked a bit better. :USAFlag:
It's laughable to recall comments on here from the past which blasted George W. for putting this nation in "a hole", with his 5 trillion dollar debt tab. So far in the last 5 years, we've racked up 7 trillion more in debt under this administration and we're on pace to add a total of 10 trillion by 2016. Many economists insist that number will be more like 12 trillion and I can see why, when one factors in ObamaMath. example; website costs 94 million = 634 million actual = 1 billion plus after incredible comedy of errors that nobody will take responsible for. If this serves as any example, ObamaCare will cost more than 10 times what we were told.
Unbelievably, I actually heard a guy for the Democrats come on TV today and blame the Republicans for the website debacle along with everything else, because they would like to see ObamaCare repealed. Republicans were excluded from the get go. Obama came to power with a super majority and were subsequently locked out of all negotiations and all debate to do with ObamaCare in both the upper and lower houses of congress. They've been denied any input whatever from the first day until the past couple of days when the administration finally were forced to admit publicly that the thing is a flop. So, since Republicans haven't been allowed to so much as dot one I in the 2700 page monstrosity which is ObamaCare, they incur absolutely no blame whatever.
BTW, if the dunderheaded Democrats would have allowed government to function as is instructed in the US Constitution and from among the founding documents, including Federalist #58, and 237 years of Congressional record by allowing duly elected Republicans to participate, maybe the darn website would have worked a bit better. :USAFlag:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
10-25-2013, 09:51 AM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:It's official, my health insurance (Humana) premium comes within $8.15 a month from doubling last years premium. My benefits are down and co-pays are up too. Has this got anything to do with Obamacare? It was supposed to go down, right?
"As A Candidate, Obama Promised That His Health Care Reform Would Save American Families $2,500 By The End Of His First Term. OBAMA: “If you are ready for change, then we can stop talking about the outrage of 47 million people without health insurance and start doing something about it. I’ve put forward a plan that says everybody will have the same health care if they want it that I have as a member of Congress, that you can’t be excluded for pre-existing conditions, we’ll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available prices. If you’re 25 or younger you can stay on your parents’ health insurance.[I] "If you’ve got health insurance, we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2500 per family per year. And we will not wait 20 years from now to do it or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America.” [/I](Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Columbus, OH, 2/27/08)"
LOL, he owes my household a lot of money already and the meter is spinning.
http://www.gop.com/news/research/obamaco...obamacare/
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
10-25-2013, 03:43 PM
^Hey Skinny. It occurs to me that my comment above, may have been somewhat lacking. In truth, the scourge of ObamaCare is anything but funny. My insurance has risen dramatically since 2008 and without a doubt, it has been painful. Thankfully Ted Cruz had enough character to bring the fight to the fore.
The oppressed can clean house in 2014.
The oppressed can clean house in 2014.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
10-26-2013, 10:57 AM
Several months ago I recognized Cruz as being one that conservatives could rally around. Now, I'm certain he's our guy.
Here comes reality/pessimism...I will be shocked and amazed if Cruz can survive the inevitable attacks from establishment republicans and the media. Using the past six years as a gauge, Cruz will be as obscure in the next presidential election as I am.
Unfortunately in this day and time, Cruz's character and fight diminishes his chances.
I realize things can change but, at the moment I see nothing that makes be believe it will.
Here comes reality/pessimism...I will be shocked and amazed if Cruz can survive the inevitable attacks from establishment republicans and the media. Using the past six years as a gauge, Cruz will be as obscure in the next presidential election as I am.
Unfortunately in this day and time, Cruz's character and fight diminishes his chances.
I realize things can change but, at the moment I see nothing that makes be believe it will.
10-26-2013, 02:44 PM
From 68 a month with an HSA to 186 a month for me with an HSA.
Deductible went from 2100 to 2500 as well.
Yes, Obamacare is definitely not working for my middle class family.
Deductible went from 2100 to 2500 as well.
Yes, Obamacare is definitely not working for my middle class family.
10-26-2013, 06:03 PM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:From 68 a month with an HSA to 186 a month for me with an HSA.
Deductible went from 2100 to 2500 as well.
Yes, Obamacare is definitely not working for my middle class family.
Deductible amounts are definitely one of the major devils in the details. The thought of getting a bronze level plan, which will only pay for 60% of covered items, scares me to death. Having to pay for at least 40% of medical expenses for the average family of four could conceivably be pretty expensive.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
