Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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.