|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#351
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#352
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#353
|
||||
|
||||
Obama
Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#354
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#355
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by Rainrider; 02-03-2011 at 08:41 AM. |
#357
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#359
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#360
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#361
|
||||
|
||||
Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.
|
#362
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#363
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#364
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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) Quote:
(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) Quote:
|
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#366
|
||||
|
||||
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. 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. Quote:
|
#367
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#368
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#369
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#370
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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." |
#371
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#372
|
||||
|
||||
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: Quote:
Quote:
I hope this clarifies things for you Senator Reid. You should be glad that the Republicans have finally heard Senator Reid and Barack Obama.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#373
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#374
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#375
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. Last edited by randolph; 02-16-2011 at 08:41 AM. |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Right-Wing Dumping Done For
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? |
#377
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#378
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#379
|
||||
|
||||
Tracy
Quote:
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
I hope they don't cut any scientific research on how to improve the plastic ends on shoe laces.
|
#381
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#382
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#383
|
||||
|
||||
I apologize. The post I read was wrong and I should have checked it out.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#384
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. Last edited by randolph; 02-18-2011 at 09:31 AM. |
#385
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#386
|
||||
|
||||
Capital Expenditure ?
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 ! |
#387
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#388
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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). |
#389
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#390
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#391
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#392
|
||||
|
||||
Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.
|
#393
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#394
|
||||
|
||||
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 This is the tip of the iceberg. You can download the full report here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230 |
#395
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#396
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#397
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#398
|
||||
|
||||
Healthcare,
Quote:
|
#399
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Last edited by Enoch Root; 02-20-2011 at 05:22 PM. |
#400
|
||||
|
||||
Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.
Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Giselly (Giselle) Lins -- another angel meets a violent end. | seanchai | In Memoriam | 10 | 08-19-2012 05:51 PM |
The Second Coming of Keliana | ila | Freebies | 9 | 12-24-2011 11:39 AM |
Absolutely gorgeous hottie asian with cumshot at end | schiff | ID help needed | 2 | 06-07-2010 12:20 PM |
Coming out | guest | Chat About Shemales | 3 | 03-15-2009 03:22 PM |
Coming out | Kendra | Chat About Shemales | 1 | 03-02-2009 05:10 PM |