Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Ever considered becoming a comedian, Tracy?

[randolph]

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Well as I said it would take some time. Tax cuts by them self won't bring the jobs back, though with the use of other things like import taxes and so on we might be able to.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Well that makes it even better. I am always talking badly of how things are done in this nation.



But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don’t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can’t be that simple and stupid.

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

I don’t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

I think that tingle was going the other way. Just a little worm tete to keep them going.
I seen a thing on Fox news, ( keep in mind I dont trust any news ) They ask people what they knew about Obama, and not person could think of any thing other than it was the guy they seen TV all the time. Uninformed votes is the biggest treat to this nation as a whole.

[randolph]

Here is an excerpt of the judge's conclusion:
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ?The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.?

The judge obviously was reluctant to rule it unconstitutional and realized there is an urgent need to have affordable health care in this country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985)

Originally Posted by randolph

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

The facts are now straight.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:



The facts are now straight.

Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.

[randolph]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

The bill was written without the usual "separability" clause that makes it possible for a judge to rule on parts of a law that is challenged rather than on the entire law. This may or may not have been done deliberately (that is a separate discussion). Hence, the judge's ruling is on the entire law.

He could have chosen to STOP the law's implementation immediately by issuing an injunction. He did not. There are arguments among lawyers and talking heads about the judge's intent, but it is clear that however he may define various words, he did not enjoin the government from its immediate implementation of the law, which he could have done and which he could have made clear.

The Justice Department considers the ruling to be a declarative one that allows for the implementation of the law as the case makes its way higher, to the Supreme Court (remember, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014). Some of the states that have sued the federal government consider the ruling to be more than declarative, and are clamoring for the immediate halt to implementation.

It is notable that the judge has NOT changed his ruling. It would be easy for a state that thinks he ruled to enjoin the law and stop its implementation immediately to go back to his court and ask for him to make this clear. That has not happened, precisely for the reason I stated earlier. Judge Vinson is acting in accord with the spirit of the statutes and his judicial authority. He seems to be recognizing the absurdity of enjoining something that hasn't yet gone into effect (in other words, how can you stop something that hasn't yet started?). And, by virtue of his statement in the ruling quoted by Randolph earlier, he recognizes the political reality that there are provisions in the law that, to stop their implementation (e.g., the provision that disallows an insurance company from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition), would not only wreak havoc but -- he implies -- are probably constitutional (remember, this bill lacked the "separability" clause).

Vinson may be an "activist judge" -- as some proponents of the law have claimed -- but he surely is no dummy.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn?t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

But there are other companies that didn?t/don?t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don?t have to pay less with Obama care?

(I?m not sure if it shines through enough that I?m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don?t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn’t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

The new tax. With any added cost it is always passed on to the consumer. Simple economics 101.

But there are other companies that didn’t/don’t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don’t have to pay less with Obama care?
In this nation if you have less than 10 people working for you, you have no need to offer Heath care. SO you are almost right. Though with this bill most small businesses will be forced out, ether do to not being able to provide HCI (Heath care Insurance) Or the tax imposed on them for not doing so. Ether way they will be shut down. This needless to say leads to higher unemployment.
(I’m not sure if it shines through enough that I’m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)



The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don’t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

Well you could turn your car in to any car company that wanted take part. Toyoda, Honda, G.M. Ford. It was more an attempt to gt us out of the SUV and into Government approved cars. You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.
I had to look that up to make sure if I was right or wrong.
By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

[Tread]

Rainrider I asked you if you can explain me why it gets more expensive, but you only describe me things from a single view point. You let other positions out, and ignore them. If every tax payer would have to pay more, the whole idea of affordable health insurance for everyone would go wrong. It can?t be that simple and stupid.

Can you, or are you willing to tell me the full story why you think it gets more expensive in long term, or not? If you only telling me these single view shreds, we can stop here. That will lead nowhere.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.

Global warming is no lie. There is the question how much mankind has to do with it. If you have any creditable prove for that statement, you could post it in the global warming thread.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

Copy and paste or type in the quote commands, so that the paragraph you want to quote is implemented by the quote commands. For further information Click here.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief".

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Originally Posted by randolph

The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

[ila]

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

When in doubt, the smart route is to assume that I am correct.

And remember the old Spanish proverb: "It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

[TracyCoxx]

Harry Reid has been chastising republicans about their position on the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. He says "We can't back out on the money we owe the rest of the world."

Well, we don't have to. We can pay the money we owe, and stop payments towards Obamacare (especially since it is currently unconstitutional), and not pay out the rest of the several stimulus packages that have been enacted. That would easily cover it.

Perhaps Senator Reid would take his beloved Obama's advice on the matter:

Originally Posted by Obama - 2006

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government?s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ?trillion? with a ?T.? That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President?s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. (actually it's increased around $5 trillion - Who would sign off on such debt increases?)

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we?ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America?s priorities.

Don't believe him Senator Reid? Well there's another person who I think you'd find yourself forced to agree with about the matter:

Originally Posted by Senator Reid - 2006

If my [Democrat] friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the [Democrat] majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it?s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That?s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation?s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they?re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.

(Republican has been changed to Democrat to better apply the economic lesson to this situation)

I hope this clarifies things for you Senator Reid. You should be glad that the Republicans have finally heard Senator Reid and Barack Obama.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.

It should be noted that this is one judge in one federal court district. Other federal judges have thrown similar suits out of court. Nothing has been settled.

[TracyCoxx]

As a matter of principle, Obama should recall his 2012 budget. In his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size. But then when he campaigned, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first year. In reality it quadrupled. Forgive me if I don't buy even his weak promises of deficit reduction this year.

[randolph]

If you look at overall government spending, taking into account spending by states, overall spending does not show a huge spike but a steady rise. Granted the rise is enormous over the past ten years. We have been living on borrowed money for a long time. All the special interests will protect their cut to the end.

[Derek1968]

Check out Wisconsin today-- 20,000 people against the Republican Governor's denial of the right to publicly protest on the part of workers and his promise to remove collective bargaining rights from state employees.

Where have you been since 2001?

Bush's tax cuts and war spent Clinton's surplus and increased the U.S debt to incredible levels. Just like Reagan's tax cuts did.

Republicans never will touch the Defense Budget. Why not?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Derek1968

Republicans never will touch the Defense Budget. Why not?

Have you heard of the peace dividend from George Bush Sr? Republicans will cut defense spending when it makes sense. BO has us in some kind of war with Afghanistan. Not really sure what that's all about, but you don't cut defense when you're in a war.

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to them.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Have you heard of the peace dividend from George Bush Sr? Republicans will cut defense spending when it makes sense. BO has us in some kind of war with Afghanistan. Not really sure what that's all about, but you don't cut defense when you're in a war.

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to them.

I'm all for the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, but even Tracy knows that this war was inherited by Obama, not started by him. Of course, why let facts get in the way when you have a point to make (even if that point is inexplicable)?

[randolph]

Tracy

But speaking of not touching something. Why have you not mentioned the democrats refusal to touch entitlement programs which dwarf defense? Not only do they never touch them, but they continuously add to

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality.

[franalexes]

I hope they don't cut any scientific research on how to improve the plastic ends on shoe laces.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality.

Wrong! Health and Human Services has the most expenses.

There are four things that cost us money...

1) Medicare
2) Military Spending
3) Social Security
4) Interest(Treasury Dept.)

Any conversation of reduction that does not focus on these 4 things is pretty much pointless.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Really! The Pentagon budget exceeds all other Federal expenses combined, over 50% of the budget. The biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. Fuck market capitalism, lets just spend our money on useless stupid military hardware and fat ass generals. Our massive cold war style military is an abject failure at dealing with current terrorist reality.

Oops, make that 23%

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oops, make that 23%

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph

I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out.

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

Wrong! Health and Human Services has the most expenses.

There are four things that cost us money...

1) Medicare
2) Military Spending
3) Social Security
4) Interest(Treasury Dept.)

Any conversation of reduction that does not focus on these 4 things is pretty much pointless.

Don't you just hate it when someone brings all the facts into a discussion?

[Mel Asher]

Well, it's much the same on this side of the Atlantic too.

Might even be symptomatic of capitalism itself, except that there are too many nominally-Democratic Totalitarian governments which do not !

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Actually, I should have pointed out that the plus fifty percent applied to discretionary spending not the total budget.
The point is that the military spending is discretionary so if we seriously want to get out of this budget hole, we need to cut military spending. Our Congress is not willing to do that. Are they hostages to the military industrial complex? Eisenhower would be shocked and appalled.

I'm not sure where your source came from (it doesn't even have a year on it, or even a country for that matter lol), and to tell the truth, I'm not sure where my pie chart came from. So I went to the horses mouth here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-th...ractive-budget

Since it's not in a convenient pie chart I made my own (you can check the numbers if you like, I didn't fudge anything. Just mouse over the categories and see the numbers there). And then I made another one lumping all the welfare programs into one category.

You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You say, or your source says, that defense is discretionary. I would argue that maybe some of it is discretionary, but for a large country, full of resources like the US, it's mandatory.

The term "discretionary spending" has a very specific meaning in economics and in government fiscal policy, whether in this country or anywhere else. It refers to spending about which the spender can make choices. Hence, it is optional, not mandatory -- no matter how important any one individual may think it is.

That is why you never hear any mention of defense spending in the specific discussion of "mandates." Mandatory spending in this context includes the so-called "entitlement programs" and spending that is specifically required by law (e.g., a federal requirement that a state spend on a particular thing or program).

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

How about corporate welfare? It doesn't show up as an entitlement program in the budget, but is hidden in hundreds of places via tax loopholes and subsidies given to the corporations by the politicians they've bought. Are you for cutting every single penny of that? If not, can you justify the expenditure of a single penny of corporate welfare?

[randolph]

OK this is from: National Priorities.org
The Federal Budget can be divided into two types of spending according to how Congress appropriates the money: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. Total Budget: $3.64 trillion Mandatory: $2.1 trillion Discretionary: $1.2 trillion Interest on Debt $247 billion Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The chart below indicates how discretionary spending was divided up in fiscal year 2011.
58 percent of the discretionary budget in FY 2011 is "national defense," a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as "military." However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.
In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year.

Ok, if that's the definition, then that's the definition. Still, suppose we have Obama and a democrat congress for another 4 years after 2012 and our debt has gone up another $8 trillion or so. The dollar collapses and our economy is sent into a serious tailspin. The government goes into emergency budget cutting mode. Entire departments are now being cut. I guarantee you we will still have a military, because we must have a military. But anyways, on with the technical definitions...

Originally Posted by randolph

In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.

Yeah, after he raises the deficit several $trillion, THEN let's freeze it lol. And that's only if you believe him. As I said above, in his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". At least he has a sense of humor right? He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size.

Originally Posted by randolph

In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

Sorry, but that does not fulfill BO's promise and frankly after raising the debt $5 trillion in the last 5 years, cutting the debt $1.3 trillion in 3 years is not adequate. What the republicans are proposing isn't even adequate. Our government needs to get serious about ELIMINATING the fucking debt! If we have to borrow to maintain our lifestyle, then something is wrong and that is unsustainable. We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.

[TracyCoxx]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

[smc]

CORPORATE WELFARE

Some people who like to beat up on the notion of the "welfare state" target only the disadvantaged, but remain silent on corporate welfare. We have people on this site who remain silent on this topic while they insult poor people about purchasing $90 shoes and generally imply that the most vulnerable in society are indolent and don't care about their families.

The Cato Institute is a think tank in Washington that promotes "limited government" and "free markets." Here's the intro to a Cato Institute report from 2007:

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses

by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government (2006).

Published on May 14, 2007

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities ? expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" ? in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.

Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda...

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

Originally Posted by ila

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

Tracy's post is disingenuous at best. By writing "neither side will give," Tracy -- as Tracy is wont to do in multiple posts throughout this site -- seeks to establish a false moral equivalency between the actions of two sides. In fact, there is only one side that would be responsible for shutting down the government, were it to happen: the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. One need only look at U.S. political history from 1992, when the Republicans last pulled this stunt, to see both what it means for the party that does it but more important the terrible toll it takes on the most vulnerable people in society.

As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

...As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

Thanks, smc, now I understand.

[scott441]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this. Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints. I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said. Never mind the assistance these people need given their poverty. Let us simply attack them and their families. Let us cut funding for education and break the already near-dead unions. They are evil after all. Any man or woman who demands a fair chance, who demands good pay, any group of people who band together into a union in order to better be able to fight against exploitation is evil. These things get in the way or profit, after all.

And never mind all the money given to corporations. God forbid the government start representing the needs and aspirations of the people. The unwashed masses undoubtedly are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they work all those tens of thousands of hours that it takes the average worker to make anything like a CEO makes in a year. The poor like being poor don't they? There's lots of them and they've been around for a long time. That they are poor cannot possibly be caused by socioeconomic factors beyond their control, right?

It's funny--not sitcom funny, but still--it is always the working people who get put on the chopping block when things go bad. But the rich always get away. They never get blamed. The Republicans skated scot free when the economy went up thanks to the Bush tax cuts--it's really tax spending: all the money the rich get is taken from the people--thanks to the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street types lie to the people and sell them bad loans--loans the people would not have to take had private industry not moved elsewhere to the planet to exploit peoples in countries without worker's rights on the one hand and frozen wages on the other, but upper management kept reaping ever more obscene rewards--but do any of these assholes go to jail? No. Instead the problem gets blamed on workers leading ever more desperate lives--their work unsatisfying, the pay atrocious, personal lives crumbling because of the financial pressure and the long work hours which get longer. And does the Republican Party, the party of unapologetic greed, receive any of the blame it so richly deserves? No. More funny: the Republicans are always talking about preserving the family and family values yet their fiscal policies have largely chipped away at the middle class, which is the same as destroying one family after another. Reagan started it. Bush perfected it.

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.

[randolph]

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.