Democrats & Liberals Archives

Now it's just a disagreement on what to legislate.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

That’s what I hear all too often from the other side of the aisle. I heard it especially loudly concerning The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Well, attempts to make their own former plan for national healthcare reform unconstitutional failed in the Supreme Court today.

Let me tell you, I'm pretty sick of the hypocritical push on the right for judicial activism. I've heard just about everything that serves as the foundation of modern government called unconstitutional. And why?

My personal theory rests on the pre-emptive nature of constitutional law, namely, it's a way to basically shut down the debate. We obviously can't go around proposing laws or structures of government that don't conform to the constitution, can we?

The Conservatives on the far right are basically saying "Don't you dare propose that, because that's forbidden by the law of the land!"

Ah, but witness their outrage when the sodomy laws got struck down, or more recently when Arizona was told it couldn't take the law into its own hands on the expressly federal matter of immigration and naturalization!

Live by the Constitution, die by the Constitution. How many Republicans out there must either take back what they said, hope for another decision many years hence, or pursue a pointless denial of the Supreme Court's final authority?

The thing about it was, I was prepared to hear a negative decision. I was prepared for the worst. I was prepared to be on the wrong side of that decision.

Too many conservatives these days feel entitled to have the government run their way, no matter what the results of the election say. They're not prepared for the government to go against them on a decision. The truth of our system is that nobody's really going to be all that coddled about what they want. Our system was designed to be a pain in the neck to true believers, to folks who are trying to sweep the government up and keep it for themselves. It was designed to give political activists and opinionators heartburn and headaches as the decisions of Congress, the President, and the Courts get in the way of what they want.

Put simply, it was designed to pit folks like me in the Blue Column, against others in the Red Column, and perhaps yet others, as each side, through its elected representatives and constitutionally protected speech, vies for control.

Most of the years I spent as a Democrat, I've spent underneath a Congress, or a President and a Congress, with whom I've had fierce disagreements. But you've never heard me talking about Second Amendment Remedies, Secession, or any of that crap, have you?

Why?

Because I have faith in the architecture of the political system that the Framers put up, and that later generations have improved upon by expanding the right to vote. I have faith that this system will allow me to speak my mind, and organize towards changing the laws and policies I don't like. I have faith that if enough people agree that my people should have the power, then the elections will work to my side's advantage.

I have faith that there's a good reason I'm not allowed to simply steamroll the opposition. I believe in the Constitution, always have, despite what some have said, because I know that we're all fallible, and if we were all forced to share the same ideas, forced to entertain only the policies one party wanted, we might all share the same strengths, but we'd share the same weakness, and what could break one, could break all.

Dissenters and rivals help this country have a robust set of ideas and proposals at hand, so that when some break, we're not all out of luck. America's as great a country as it is because it can avail itself of the wisdom, knowledge, and judgment of all its citizens, not simply the few lucky enough to be in control. Our freedom isn't just there for show. It's what gives our nation's democratic republic its life, fulfills the purpose of what was written into the constitution.

I know deep down that I would love to basically set my preferences as law. I'd love to make things as I want them. And a lot of other people are the same. But if that were to happen, the policies would have the strengths of what I got right, but also the weaknesses of what I got wrong, and deep down I know I'm capable of being wrong.

Today claims that Obamacare was unconstitutional were put to the test, and they failed. Yesterday, it was the Montana campaign finance law that was put to the test, and it failed, continuing what I would consider the blight of that misguided decision. As a citizen of this country, though, under its constitution, the bargain I have to strike for being on the right side of the Affordable Care Act decision is that I'm bound to accept the result I didn't like as binding.

Is that the bargain you're willing to accept, that we respect the decisions that don't go our way, in return for the legitimacy of those decisions that do? I hope so. But if you don't, please don't claim to be a constitutionalist, or a strict constructionist. The bargain we strike to be free and to live in a Republic like ours, where we can compete to take on the power to change what we don't like, is that others have to have this freedom, and this opportunity, too.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 12:51 PM
Comments
Comment #347406

SD

“Ah, but witness their outrage when the sodomy laws got struck down, or more recently when Arizona was told it couldn’t take the law into its own hands on the expressly federal matter of immigration and naturalization!”

Stephen you are a liar. AZ was only trying to enforce the law according to fed guidelines. What you just printed is an outright lie and you know it. Your whole post has not one iota of credibility, not one.

You just prited a rash of manure and you know the value is not in fertilier.

what phaff!

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 28, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #347409

As far as judicial activism it shut YOUR PEOPLE down as well. If Roberts sided with the right YOUR PEOPLE would be screaming. One thing I find good for the right is now the mandate is a TAX which YOUR PEOPLE lied and said it was NOT. Roberts now gave ammunition to the right. I find in Roberts decision is the fact that he said it was the job of the court to rule on the constitionality of the law, not if it is a bad law or not. Now we hace to see what congress does and what YOJUR PEOPLE have to say about the mandate being a TAX, especially for those Democrats who voted for the bill on the assumption that the mandate was NOT a TAX.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #347410

Your right Stephen, the right is in a permanent frenzy. You’ve already been called a liar for repeating what the supreme court essentially said on immigration.

Oh, and it looks like Roberts is going to be his own man and think for himself. Bad news guys.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 28, 2012 2:44 PM
Comment #347411

SD:

It is interesting that John Roberts essentially said that the individual mandate is a tax, since one can pay the tax penalty of 1%, rather than egaging in the commerce or purchasing insurance. As I recall, the “mandate” was put in place because ACA with a tax had no chance of passage.

IMO, the penalty of 1% was purposely set at the low 1% rate to lead to the collapse of the insurance industry and eventual transition to single payer. A 1% penalty on my AGI would be on the order of $50 every two weeks, approximately a forth of my contribution to employee-provided insurance (not counting the cost kicked in by my employer). Once in force, a rational monetary decision would be to “go bare”, pay the tax penalty and save money. If I got seriously ill, I could immediately get an insurance policy, which could not be denied to me because of any pre-existing condition.

That should bankrupt the insurance industry pretty quickly, leaving the federal government to “save the day” with single-payer.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 28, 2012 2:49 PM
Comment #347412

“That should bankrupt the insurance industry pretty quickly, leaving the federal government to “save the day” with single-payer.”

Untrue.

Increased competition between private insurers will lead to lower costs for health coverage across the board. Hence, if someone’s employer chooses not to contribute to their health plan, the employee can seek alternative plans with much greater financial ease.

Group health care packages will also see a reduction in prices for the same reasons. Regardless, all the health care price statistics are based on data from an industry which has long been bloated and out of control. They will lose relevance as time goes by.

Some private insurers will suffer because they will be unable to adapt. The industry as a whole will grow, however, and their services will improve from the consumer point of view.

Posted by: Austin Rob at June 28, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #347413

Austin Rob:

You miss my point, which isn’t making employer-based insurance less expensive. No insurer can compete on cost, no matter how efficient, with a 1 percent tax penalty if they can be forced to accept a person with pre-existing conditions. An AGI of $1 million would yield a tax penalty of $10,000, a typical cost for yearly insurance for a family. For a family with a AGI of $60,000, a 1% penalty is $600. No one will be able to cover someone for that annual cost.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 28, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #347414

tom humes-
Ah, so the name-calling begins.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
By a vote of 6-2, the court voided a provision making it a state crime for an immigrant to fail to carry federal registration papers. By 5-3 votes, it invalidated sections that authorized jail time for illegal immigrants who seek worak[sic] in Arizona and that gave state and local police more power to arrest immigrants suspected of offenses.

Can we start by agreeing that the Constitution gives no express powers to the state to regulate immigration and naturalization, but does give it to Congress? Can we also agree that where the Federal Government has authority under the Constitution, The Supremacy Clause eliminates the state’s authority to overrule Federal policy?

It’s not the State’s job to volunteer itself to enforce immigration policy. If the states do help, they do it under the direction of and in cooperation with the Federal Government, because that’s who has the power under the constitution. It is most certainly not Arizona’s job to legislate to further regulate or deny federal policy on that matter. America cannot have fifty different policies on how to deal with immigrants to ONE country. The States do not have that level of sovereignty on the issue.

KAP-
Just doesn’t have the ring that “It’s not constitutional!!!1!!1! OMGWTFBBQ!!!!1!!!” has, does it? It’s a tax only those who can afford coverage but who don’t get it will pay.

Actually, the mandate might not have been that well mourned by my side. Remember, our folks, hell, many Americans liked the Public Option or Medicare buy-in better.

But as outraged as Democrats might have been, I think you would have seen more muted outrage out of them. One reason Roberts decided what he did could have been that if the ACA got struck down in full, you could have seen a commercials from here to judgment day saying that the Right-Wing court threw millions of Americans off of insurance.

MikeinTampa-
What are you saying, the mandate should be higher?

Look, I think it’s the greed of the healthcare insurers that’s threatening to make the industry obsolete. America cannot afford to pay their costs as it is, and most of that money is neither going to research and development, nor to paying the real cost of procedures.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 3:29 PM
Comment #347416

I was just listening to Bryan Fischer on American Family Radio call Roberts a “Judas” and suggest that his whole ruling was “legal gobbledygook” and that Robers may have something mentally wrong with him. Fischer was dismayed that Robers is so young and could have 25 more years of these types of rulings ahead of him. Then his guest went so far as to suggest Roberts had been “gotten to” in order to get this ruling from him. Who? Why? How? They couldn’t say!

The right was just so sure Obamacare would crumble and that it would be the opening salvo of Obama’s 2012 demise. Now without it they’re reduced to blubbering name calling children and they work to quickly and carelessly construct conspiracies about how this might have happened. I think the presidential election is too close to call at this point but this gives us clear insight into how the right will react should Obama win a second term.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at June 28, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #347419

SD:

“Remember, our folks, hell, many Americans liked the Public Option or Medicare buy-in better.”

You make my point. The 1 percent tax penalty in lieu of carrying private insurance, with a requirement that private insurers take all comers with pre-existing conditions, is designed to bankrupt private insurance to get to single payer.

Medicare is one of the single biggest causes of our long-term debt burden. Having a generous program that eventually can’t be funded isn’t really a solution to rising health care costs. Look at Greece, Spain, etc.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 28, 2012 3:51 PM
Comment #347420

Obama kept saying the mandate is not a TAX, and now it is, so Obama and YOUR SIDE lied. Now the problem is Stephen, small business’ will they stay @49 people? Now small business people won’t hire or if they do, do they pay the TAX which would be lower then the cost of providing HC? Where are those people going to go for HC ins., and who is going to pay, Stephen? This is going to cost TAX payers billions and is the biggest TAX increase on the middle class brought to you by YOUR PEOPLE.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #347421

Because 1 of 12 justices (and a conservative one) considered it a tax after long and careful consideration that means according to KAP “Obama and your side lied”. The delusional frenzy is on.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 28, 2012 4:16 PM
Comment #347423

Oh, and it looks like Roberts is going to be his own man and think for himself. Bad news guys.
Posted by: Schwamp

Bad news…really?

From “The Caucus”


By JAMES B. STEWART


Broccoli carried the day.

To the delight of conservatives and libertarians and the dismay of many legal scholars, the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause in the Constitution does not empower Congress to force people to buy health insurance — or healthy green vegetables like broccoli, for that matter.

Widely dismissed — even ridiculed — by most constitutional scholars, the broccoli argument was cited by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who also wrote, “Under the gov­ernment’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables,” adding, “That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envisioned.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 4:45 PM
Comment #347424

The question is Schwamp would all of the democrats voted for the ACA if the mandate was deemed a TAX in the first place? Obama his self said time and again IT WAS NOT A TAX. So who is telling what Schwamp did he lie? Did some in congress lie? Delusion? I think who is delusional is you.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 4:46 PM
Comment #347425

I think Chief Justice Roberts is a little smarter then some give him credit for. By him deeming the mandate as a TAX, and most people today deem raiseing TAXES as not a good idea may put a bad outlook on Democrats. He threw this back in the laps of congress and the administration and the people who voted for them.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #347426

KAP, I believe you are correct. This ruling in no way expanded the commerce clause. What it did was call a tax a tax. Now, the dems will have to deal with spinning how this tax will not hit ordinary Americans in the pocket. obama will be forced to contradict his own statements. What fun!

I believe this ruling will energize reps to work harder and spend even more to elect more reps to congress.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #347427

Mike In Tampa-
No, I don’t make your point for you, because those alternatives don’t exist as of yet. This is your Private Enterprise solution’s last, best chance to prove that it can deliver a product that delivers quality at an inexpensive price. And really, if the mandate had been struck down, you would have seen the last best alternative be some sort of government program, because not nearly enough people sue their doctors to make malpractice reform (if you can call it reform) enough of a cost saver.

The Mandate was really a gimmee to conservatives. Nobody was expecting at that point that Republicans would just start yelling “Nooooo” at the top of their lungs until they went blue in the face. They thought it was something that could get bipartisan support.

Democrats are not wanting to crash the economy or destroy whole industries.

KAP-
I wonder, if the Supreme Court struck down the law, would you at all be concerned at this point about whether Obama or the Democrats were disingenuous about the legal underpinnings of the mandate?

You lost. So, you’re looking to rescue some survivors from the wreckage of a whole passenger train full of predictions that Obamacare was doomed.

Have fun.

Royal Flush-
You should hear some of the things your conservative friends are saying about Roberts.

You don’t build up millions of Republicans to the expectation that Obamacare would be judicially repealed, and Obama’s signature achievement weakened or destroyed, and not get some sort of backlash out of this.

Oh, and it’s starting, and some of your people are saying beautifully ****ed up things.

Take Rand Paul:

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.

While Paul might disagree with the ruling, stating that the courts declaring a law constitutional doesn’t make it so flies in the face of the constitution’s delegation of final interpretation of federal law, not to mention the long confirmed precedent of Marbury V. Madison, which basically asserted that the Judiciary branch could decide the constitutionality of laws.

Jim DeMint is summoning up the specter of State nullification from the grave, Jack Kingston is mourning that he lost two friends: Justice Roberts and America(!); And Mike Pence compared the ruling to 9/11, which is sadly only a joke in the existential sense of things.

And now? Romney can no longer explain his opposition in constitutional terms, not and be taken seriously, with Bush appointee Roberts having made the decision.

So, find whatever silver linings you want while Democrats walk on the clouds and Republicans continue to show they don’t have the sense to come out of the rain.

One thing for sure: the narrative of liberal overreach just got cut short. The only real concerns were Medicaid funding and the mandate. The rest of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act were completely untouched. The tax argument is a political argument, and only conservatives desperate enough to look stupid are going to embrace an argument that says that the mandate’s tax penalty was intended as a stealth tax increase on Americans.

“It can be argued” is not the same as “it should be argued”, and after having their primary anti-Obamacare argument broken over the Supreme Court’s knee, they should take better care in avoiding overreach on their rhetoric.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #347428

Stephen, I thought the mandate was wrong from the start. When Roberts declared it a TAX just bolstered my opinion of the mandate. Maybe you want government up your A** but I don’t. As some said today I think this opinion awakened a sleeping giant. IMO I think November will be 2010 all over again. Like I said Roberts just threw this back in the laps of congress and the administration and the voters, and as he said his job was to decide the constitutionality of the law not if it is good or bad that is what the voters are to decide. Good luck to YOUR PEOPLE this November, I think you are in for a rude awakening this November.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #347429

It’s so sad that SD must dance around the points in my post without being able to address them. Clearly, the ruling does not expand the commerce clause which is the argument that the obama legal team used to justify obamacare. It is the same argument made by SD and his lib followers.

obamacare is a tax according to the ruling…can you dispute this? obama and his cohorts in congress flatly called it something else and the video is available for all to watch. Some were persuaded to vote for obamacare as they could hide behind the cover that it was not a tax. Don’t you remember any of those debates? Were you asleep?

Those dems running for seats in congress must justify why they voted for tax increases for middle class Americans when they promised the American people there would not be an increase. It’s “READ MY LIPS TIME”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 6:18 PM
Comment #347430

KAP-
Look, I couldn’t be happier than to have Republicans explain why young adults are going to be thrown off their parent’s policies, why people with pre-existing conditions are going to be denied coverage, why billions of dollars that was going to nobody’s healthcare in the Medicare advantage plan, and billions of dollars in excess payments to the pharmaceutical companies from the government are going to now be wasted once more.

You guys did a marvellous job souring people on the mandate and things like that, but HCR wasn’t just the mandate. The mandate was just there so that guaranteeing healthcare wouldn’t kill the insurance companies. The rest are basically popular on their own, and reasonable in most people’s eyes.

I would like to have that fight with your side. Having it as a political question is just fine with me, that was what it was to begin with, and that was the fight we already won.

Royal Flush-
It basically says that while the government can’t command you to eat broccoli, it can sure tax you if you don’t. Tell me, how do you feel now that Roberts has reaffirmed that the Federal Government can tax inactivity it doesn’t like?

By the way, it’s the mandate that is justified under the taxing power in Robert’s ruling, not anything else. Nothing else beside the question of what medicaid funding could be revoked if the states didn’t adopt the new policies was held controversial.

So, most of the policies are not in any trouble, and never were.

You’re trying to push a technicality, and we can fight that with the simple truth that this is only for those who make them free riders on a system.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 6:29 PM
Comment #347431

I report and SD twists. Let’s see…a bill passes congress based upon a big lie. The supreme court exposes the lie. Voters are told the truth that dems lied. How exactly is that good for dems?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 6:35 PM
Comment #347432

We always said that Obama was big tax guy. Now that his Obama health care tax has been declared constitutional, we should work on making health care better and more affordable.

So let’s look at the Obama plus and minus.

On the plus side - he managed to impose a new tax on health care.

On the minus side - he failed to reform healthcare or reduce costs.

Conclusion - Obama did what Democrats do best - raised taxes. We need a more able leadership to reform health care.

Posted by: C&J at June 28, 2012 6:39 PM
Comment #347433

Eric Holder was held in criminal contempt by a vote of 255/67 in the House. He is the first sitting cabinet member ever to be held in contempt by the full house.

He is paying the price for lying just as the lying obama and members of congress lied about obamacare not being a tax to gain votes and public support.

That SD and his lib friends support lying is no surprise. Hell, they lie to us nearly every day on WB. The truth seems to be whatever suits their purpose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 6:48 PM
Comment #347435

Royal

Let’s be fair. All the honest Democrats in the House voted to hold Holder in contempt. They are not all liars.

Posted by: C&J at June 28, 2012 6:55 PM
Comment #347436

Well C&J, you’re right. And a bunch of dems walked out rather than have their vote recorded…lol.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 6:58 PM
Comment #347437

What is ironic about this ruling is that it upholds a health care reform originally championed by conservatives but passed by liberals.

In 2001, the conservative Heritage Foundation, testifying before Congress, advocated a mandate for Americans to purchase individual health insurance with subsidies for lower income individuals and families. It referred to its recommended mandate as a “soft mandate” enforced by the tax code.

Now, conservatives are disappointed by a Supreme Court that agrees with the Constitutionality of such a “soft mandate.” Go figure!

I become more and more convinced that politics is nothing more than tribal warfare.

Posted by: Rich at June 28, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #347438

The SC agreed that congress has the power to tax health care.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 7:37 PM
Comment #347439

This from Ezra Klein writing on “Wonkblog”

“The political genius of John Roberts”

“We’re on poker. He’s on chess.”

“By voting with the liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has put himself above partisan reproach. No one can accuse Roberts of ruling as a movement conservative. He’s made himself bulletproof against insinuations that he’s animated by party allegiances.

But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, he nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

And for President Obama, who has labored without success to find a bipartisan foothold in his advocacy for the Affordable Care Act, Roberts’s coup in writing an opinion that has found support on both sides must inspire some grudging respect.”

Charles Krauthammer writing in the Washington Post writes;

“It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2012 8:14 PM
Comment #347440

Royal Flush-
If we were lying, then wasn’t Romney? Wasn’t the Heritage Foundation? Weren’t the Republicans in Congress lying to the American people when they presented this as a counterproposal to Clinton’s healthcare plan?

The problem in trying to turn the tax-coded mechanism back on us is that this was your tax code mechanism, so if you ask, “Why did Obama raise taxes on millions of Americans?”, then our answer is “Why did Romney raise taxes on millions of Bay Staters? Why did Republicans Opposing Clinton propose raising taxes on millions of Americans? Why did the Heritage Foundation propose raising taxes on millions of Americans?

This is the price you folks pay for being massive flip-floppers in the name of sticking it to Obama.

As for Holder? I’m going to have an article up pretty soon about how some of the fundamental charges against the DOJ and ATF of “walking weapons” are basically the result of weak gun laws authored by the same sort of Republicans who are going after Holder, and how their main accuser proposed and ran an operation in which guns were actually walked, and never recovered.

The people who should really be held in criminal contempt are the blindly partisan yahoos who want to have their cake and eat it too on gun control laws and keeping guns out of the hands of the cartel.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 8:18 PM
Comment #347443

Big victory for Obama. Great political victory, and a practical achievement as well. I have mixed feelings about Obamacare. I always wanted universal health care. But this reform is better than doing nothing.

Republicans have been motivated to oppose everything done by Obama- literally everything- as a matter of political partisanship. When given an opportunity to negotiate reform, they spent six months pretending to negotiate, then walked away from the table and declared total opposition.

These hypocrites oppose the penalty or tax some people might pay with Obamacare, yet they have no suggestions to address the underlying problem: skyrocketing health care costs. Obamacare will prevent that problem. Health care costs will be brought under control, at last. This more than compensates for the downside of the individual mandate. The health care insurance industry wants this, and the Democrats used Romney’s plan to create a workable system of compromises.

During the Bush administration, spending increased in three areas: 1) DoD, 2) TSA, and 3) health care costs, driven by increases in private health care. Obamacare will reign in spending. Yet conservatives oppose it and embarrassed themselves by talking about ‘death panels.’

Citing Holder for contempt is an absolute disgrace for the GOP. It’s a real low, a blatantly partisan vote based on conspiracy theories and pushed by the NRA. Sad day to be a Republican.

Easy to see how you guys voted for Bush. Twice. You’re still on a roll.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2012 8:49 PM
Comment #347444

Austin Rob said, “Increased competition between private insurers will lead to lower costs for health coverage across the board. Hence, if someone’s employer chooses not to contribute to their health plan, the employee can seek alternative plans with much greater financial ease.
Group health care packages will also see a reduction in prices for the same reasons. Regardless, all the health care price statistics are based on data from an industry which has long been bloated and out of control. They will lose relevance as time goes by.
Some private insurers will suffer because they will be unable to adapt. The industry as a whole will grow, however, and their services will improve from the consumer point of view.”

This isn’t true. Companies will opt to pay the penalty rather than pay for the insurance, which will lead to insurance companies going broke, and thus out of business. The Obama administration sold Obamacare to the insurance companies as a boon because young people would be forced to buy insurance and the insurance companies were seeing dollar signs. But it was a ruse. Since private individuals cannot go across state lines to purchase insurance, and since companies will opt out for the less expensive penalty, there will never be any competition. Employers will not seek better group HC packages, employers will go the least expensive way. Your comment on a “bloated” insurance tells the real truth; like all industry, the HC insurance industry is the enemy of the left. Why, because it is an industry that works because it makes a profit and profits are evil.

Stephen Daugherty’s comment also supports this, “Look, I think it’s the greed of the healthcare insurers that’s threatening to make the industry obsolete.”

The industry is always the enemy.It is this hatred of corporations that will destroy this country. Why does the left complaign about companies shipping jobs overseas; they can’t stand them when they are in America?

KAP, you are correct. Obama told George Stephanopoulos that the mandate was not funded by a tax. Several of the Obama talking heads declared the same thing. The left believes Obama to be a Constitutional Scholar, yet his Constitutional penalty was declared to be a tax. In fact it is the largest tax to ever be levied at the middle-class Americans.

This will infuriate the right, especially the Tea Party conservatives. The results will be seen in November. The only thing Obama had to run on was jerked out from under his feet. He can’t run on the economy, he can’t run on employment, and now he can’t run on 4 white guys and an Uncle Tom in the SCOTUS who shot down his HC law. So what does it leave for him to run on? His base will become confident that all is well with the world and Obama is still sitting on the throne. They will not vote in November unless he can create a race issue. When the House found Holder guilty of Criminal and Civil Contempt, as much as the Democrats would like, they have shot their wad on racism. The Holder issue was to be about race, but now it will be in the hands of the courts and on the back burner. So what does Obama have to run on? Nothing; he can brag about Obamacare, but Obamacare is certainly not popular with at least 60% of the voters. On the other hand, the conservatives have a lot to be fired up about and as long as Romney leads the attack on Obama, he can win. The House and Senate Democrats are already having the fight of their lives to hold on to their seats.

KAP is correct again that Roberts threw this back in the laps of the voters and as time goes by; the Democrats are going to have to answer for this giant tax increase. Plus, the Commerce Clause, so widely used over the years for everything and anything, was dealt a severe blow. Obamacare was forced on us, not through the commerce clause (which was the basis for its passing), but through higher taxation. The Obamacare will be tagged as nothing more than redistribution of wealth; not on the rich 1%, but rather on the middle-class 99%. The shit is going to hit the fan on this one.

I heard today that when the Republicans take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency; they can implement a tax on any liberal who refuses to buy a gun. If the government can mandate what we have to purchase or face a tax, I say, go for it.

Posted by: Frank at June 28, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #347445

As I have said before, I love it. I hope Obama keeps doing what he is doing. I hope Holder keeps spouting the same BS. And I hope the libs keep bragging about their great victory over the unwashed masses of Americans.

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 9:43 PM
Comment #347446

I’m not sure who is calling Roberts names. Could it be the same people that had a problem with Romney’s religion? You know… the hate filled left.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment #347447

Stephen, quit danceing around the issue stated, it’s about the mandate being declared a TAX. It has nothing to do with junior being able to be on mommy and daddy’s policy until they are 26. It’s the TAX Stephen that Obama and others said that it was not. Did they lie Stephen? Did they not dupe other Democrats that would not vote for it if they said TAX? Did they not lie to the public by saying this was not a TAX, especialy your favorite democrat Obama? Did he keep saying to everyone this is not a TAX? Answer the questions Stephen Did YOUR PEOPLE LIE???????????????

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 10:20 PM
Comment #347448

Frank is right, it’s gonna hit the fan. And yes, it’s about a tax that Obama said was not a tax. Obamacare would never have passed if it had been a tax. I don’t know if anyone is on FB, but the Obama lied cartoons are being shared like wildfire. By this time tomorrow, the only one who won’t know it is the largest tax increase to ever be imposed on low and middle class Americans will be Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 10:25 PM
Comment #347449

KAP,
The mandate involves a penalty which is only paid by people who choose not to obtain insurance. There are no consequences for not paying the tax- at least for the time being- no garnishment, no fines, nothing. Furthermore, it will only apply to people above a certain income level. Interestingly, the mandate fee is never referred to as a ‘tax’ at any point in the bill and does not appear in the IRS code. A tax is intended to raise revenue. A penalty does not have that purpose.

Roberts called the mandate fee a ‘tax.’ He felt he had to do it in order to justify according to his interpretationof the Constitution. Some of the other justices did not see it as a tax at all.

So I know this looks like splitting hairs, or an exercise in semantics, or whatever, but it does seem Obama could reasonably claim that this is not a tax, and that he kept his promise. I would certainly understand if you chose not to see it that way. I’m still learning about all this. I fall into an unusual category and the legislation will definitely affect my life- as near as I can tell, for the better.

Our health care system is seriously disfunctional. I looked into quotes for a hip replacement for my wife. If I pay for it myself, it will run $18,000 - $23,000. If the hospital bills the insurer, it would be $30,000 - $39,000, and I would be on the hook for 20%, in addition to the usual monthly premiums… assuming an insurer would cover it at all, which is questionable, since it could be considered a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2012 10:38 PM
Comment #347450

By the way, TomT & Frank, how will you spend the check Obama will be sending you? Private health insurers only spend 45 - 65% of their costs on health care. Obamacare establishes a minimum of 80%, and requires the private health insurers send checks for the difference to people who were overcharged in the past.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2012 10:56 PM
Comment #347452

And phx8 tomt, The whole bill is riddled with taxes. Plus the fact that small business and maybe even corporations will opt out of providing Health insurance claiming the penalty or TAX will be cheaper for them then the expensive insurance leaveing employees to fend for themselves or going on the government dole. By the way phx8 even the Lawyers for Obamacare argued it was a TAX. If you don’t believe read the Court transcript. So the question remains Did Obama and company LIE????

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #347453

KAP,
At least two of the justices did not see it as a tax, but a penalty, which is not the same thing. So no. Obama did not lie.

How will you spend your rebate, KAP?

As for the opt out… If I understand it correctly, businesses with under 50 employees will not be required to provide insurance. People without coverage will have the option of using state insurance pools. Vermont and Oregon are already well along the way towards creating those pools. Other states are doing everything possible to prevent their population from obtaining coverage. I guess we’ll see how that works.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2012 11:21 PM
Comment #347454

Medicare won’t give a rebate phx8. Your right business with less than 50 people will not have to provide insurance but those with over 50 do, so those with over 50 deside to quit paying for insurance and pay the TAX penalty and forceing their employees to use the state system will overburden the state system. By the way phx8 who is going to collect the the so called penalties, the IRS, so it’s a TAX PENALTY.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 11:39 PM
Comment #347455

2 said it was not a TAX, 4 decented, so that leaves 3 that say it’s a TAX phx8.

Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 11:42 PM
Comment #347456

Here are some of the things Obamacare brings:

“First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.”

In a nutshell, Obamacare brings the private health insurers more customers, in exchange for controlling costs.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 12:43 AM
Comment #347462

I appreciate how optimistic the right is trying to appear in this thread despite being dealt a huge blow yesterday. They’re trying to make us think they’ve taken lemons and made lemonade. The truth is they know that ACA is going forward now and they can’t stop it.

They have a narrow window to try and smear it some more by saying “IT’S A TAX! IT’S A TAX! OBAMA LIED! LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE UNIVERSE! REVOLT! REVOLT!” before time is up and Americans see through the right’s lies about ACA once and for all.

What they fear most of all is that soon the bill will reach the point of no return and they will be powerless to stop it without suffering political consequences the same way it is with Social Security and Medicare already.

Americans are going to love some of it, they may even hate some of it, but they’ll understand how it truly functions in the end whereas right now they only have lies and misconceptions…the bread and butter of the right.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at June 29, 2012 9:20 AM
Comment #347463

“By the way, TomT & Frank, how will you spend the check Obama will be sending you? Private health insurers only spend 45 - 65% of their costs on health care. Obamacare establishes a minimum of 80%, and requires the private health insurers send checks for the difference to people who were overcharged in the past.”
Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2012 10:56 PM

The health insurers supported Obamacare, AARP who provides HC insurance supported Obamacare; why would health insurers support a system that required them to lose profits and pay money back to the people? They would not. Either Obama lied and deceived them on the full thrust of Obamacare, or you are incorrect in stating they will send checks to people. The health insurers supported Obamacare because they were convinced it would require young healthy people, who would normally choose to do without HC ins, to buy the insurance which would be pure profit for the insurers.

“And phx8 tomt, The whole bill is riddled with taxes. Plus the fact that small business and maybe even corporations will opt out of providing Health insurance claiming the penalty or TAX will be cheaper for them then the expensive insurance leaveing employees to fend for themselves or going on the government dole. By the way phx8 even the Lawyers for Obamacare argued it was a TAX. If you don’t believe read the Court transcript. So the question remains Did Obama and company LIE????”
Posted by: KAP at June 28, 2012 11:12 PM

I heard Garaldo Rivera, who is certainly not a conservative, comment on the passing of Obamacare this morning. He stated, there are 24 different taxes hidden in Obamacare, 12 of which will apply to those making less than $200k. This will be a direct impact on the lower and middleclass. Add to that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and we are looking at massive tax increases on the lower and middleclass Americans. Geraldo also said Roberts debunked the idea of a partisan political court, gave Obama a victory, but handed the 2012 elections to the Republicans. If you will check the news articles of the past several weeks, every political pundit has assumed the Obamacare mandate would fail, and the stage was being set for Obama to run against an out of control SC, but the pundits were completely wrong. The complete list of taxes will amount to several trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Our economy is already flat, and this HC law will kill business and hiring.

“KAP,
At least two of the justices did not see it as a tax, but a penalty, which is not the same thing. So no. Obama did not lie.” Phx8
Phx8, are we now calling for a complete consensus in the SC on an issue? If you accept the ruling that the law stands and the same court rules it is a tax, then you must accept the whole ruling. You cannot pick and choose. Obama said it was not a tax, his talking heads said it was not a tax, and yet his lawyers argued it was a tax in the SC. The law was voted on in the House and Senate based on the fact it was not a tax; if it had been voted on as a tax, Obamacare would never have passed. The Republicans and conservatives knew it was a tax, the Democrats who passed this monstrosity knew it was a tax but played word games. Obamacare is now being called “OBAMATAX” and the Democrats are going to answer to the voters for passing the largest tax increase in the history of America.

If there has been a consistent 50-60% of Americans wanting to repeal the law, for the past 2 years, what do you think the percentage will be when they find out we were hoodooed by Democrats and Obama? 2010 was about Obamacare and 2012 will be a blood bath for the Democrats. A recent FOX Poll determined the mandate to force Americans to pay a tax or buy insurance to be a violation of the Federal Government by 60% of the people. This was already unpopular, but as the taxes and laws involved become known by the people, it will become less popular. The question is; will Obama run on his greatest achievement (Obamacare) being paid for by the largest tax increase in history? I really doubt it.

“Here are some of the things Obamacare brings:
“First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.”
In a nutshell, Obamacare brings the private health insurers more customers, in exchange for controlling costs.”
Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 12:43 AM

Phx8, none of this is true. You are simply parroting the Obama talking points. How can you make these statements, when as each day passes by, we are learning more about what’s in Obamacare? Here is a list of the 2 dozen new or enhanced taxes, including a 23.6 billion tax on bio-fuels:

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758

How will these new taxes be enforced; by the hiring of thousands of new IRS tax agents to probe into every aspect of our lives:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/22/irs-looking-to-hiring-thousands-of-armed-tax-agents-to-enforce-health-care-laws/

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 9:37 AM
Comment #347464

Adam, I don’t think you comprehend, we cannot afford the ACA. Government run SS and Medicare are in financial free fall and you expect the governemnt to be able to responsibly control another 16% of America’s finances? This is more than claims by the left that Obama lied and it’s more than propaganda by the right. Americans are truely upset with what has happened. Obama NEVER had a majority support for his HC bill. Hillary Clinton Never had the support of her HC plan. And now, after the American people believed the SC would kill this major intrusion into our lives; it was handed back to the Congress and the American people were basically told by Roberts, “you don’t want higher taxes, don’t vote for Democrats”. The numbers that are already out show the American people are furious and the “lies and propaganda” of the right are not going to make much difference.

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 9:49 AM
Comment #347469

Frank-

The alternative would be one man, Chief Justice Roberts, had the power to kill the major intrusion.

In the end the Court (by a 5-4 vote) said that elections matter. I think the Court did the best they could to maintain the power of the legislature while protecting, and even bolstering, the idea of a limited Federal Government.

Posted by: George at June 29, 2012 9:59 AM
Comment #347470

Frank: “Americans are truely upset with what has happened. Obama NEVER had a majority support for his HC bill.”

When discussing what ACA does Americans have greater support. When discussing ACA in general the support drops. Why is that? Could it be the millions of dollars spent to fill our media with lies about the bill? AFR Talk this morning just repeated the lie that ACA is now the largest tax increase in American history. There is no end to the right wing lies about ACA. There never will be. Let’s note the right can’t stop lying about policies of the Great Depression so why should they stop lying about policies that happened just a few years back?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM
Comment #347473

RE the link to the Norquist site, and the claim that Obamacare represents the largest tax increase etc.

There is a difference between a penalty and a tax. For example, if you have a 401k and you withdraw money early, there is a 20% penalty which is recorded on the 1040 and paid to the IRS. This is a penalty. It is not a tax. To claim everyone who has a 401k has suffered a huge tax increase because of the early withdrawal penalty is false, and so are many of the Norquist claims about Obamacare. Read the list of 15 supposed tax increases carefully. Those are NOT tax increases.

You ask: “Why would health insurers support a system that required them to lose profits and pay money back to the people?”

Because in exchange for taking a one time hit on overcharges- mostly profit- the private health cre insurers will receive all those uninsured people out there as new customers. Everyone will be incentivized by the penalties to obtain health care insurance.

Despite the fact that people like you will be receiving a rebate, a check, Obamacare is seen as a good deal for those health care insurance providers. Take a look at the stocks of those companies. None are trading as if the industry were endangered in any way.

It’s a complex piece of legislation. I’m still learning. In general, I’m impressed by how many balances exist within the legislation. A lot of people put a lot of time into this legislation, and it looks like it has been well done. It’s the best health care reform we’ve seen in decades. We could do better with universal health. But this is reality, and this legislation is the best we can do.

Are you one of those people who will be receiving a check? If so, how much will you be receiving?

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #347474

I’m not surprised one bit by this so-called ruling. Our once great nation has been moving further and further left over the decades and forcing this assault on our rights down our throats will bring us all to the total government dependency the leftists desire.

Judging by our experience with other such assaults on our freedoms, our future is pretty much mapped out.
Each year, more and more people will see no need to work or save for their own health care needs. They will become dependent on government to provide for their health care.
Each year, government will dictate more and more how every private insurance company will operate.
Each year, in a failed effort to control costs, government will dictate how individuals live their personal lives.
Each year, responsible Americans will bear more and more of this burden.
Eventually, government mandated regulations will “price out” private insurance and it will become something for only the wealthy.
At the expense of our Constitutional rights, government provided health care will be forced upon us as a new created feel-good right and a “universal” government plan will be finalized.

The individual rights and freedoms that made us special, better than every other nation in the world, will be gone. We will have thrown it all away so that we could be just another basic European style socialist democracy.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2012 11:59 AM
Comment #347476

Adam Ducker; “When discussing what ACA does Americans have greater support.”

Do you have documentation on this or is it another liberal talking point that has morphed into a fact? I can give you the links to 2 years of polls showing a majority of Americans wanting a repeal of Obamacare; but you have already admitted this to be true.

The financing of Obamacare was declared by the SC to be a tax, it was declared by Republicans, during the Congressional proceedings to be a tax, and lastly it was argued by the WH lawyers in the SC to be a tax. What part of this don’t you understand? You do realize that if it is a tax (the largest tax increase in history), then Democrats and Obama will be held accountable? Therefore, it is the goal of the left to change history and say it is not a tax, when it is.

Phx8, the difference between a 401k penalty being paid to tax collectors and the tax collected to support Obamacare is that one is an option and the other is not. You can spin it all you want about health insurers; but Obamacare will cause insurers to go out of business. The left does not care if this happens, because it will hasten the implementation of single payer government ins plan.

You keep asking about people getting rebate checks; what the hell are you talking about. Is this another liberal talking point that has miraculously become fact?

Kctim, there is something you have left out; these penalties or taxes will continue to grow. They will have to in order to feed this monster we now have; just as the cost of Medicare and SS has risen and the benefits have dropped. Medicare and SS are unsustainable and Obamacare is unsustainable. It will be the proverbial straw that breaks the back of America. The Canadians and the Europeans have had to result to buying private ins, for those who can afford it, if they want real health insurance. The arguments about “death panels” and rationing are a reality in Europe and will be a reality here. What the SC has done is deliver a death blow to our Republic.

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 1:01 PM
Comment #347477

The Republicans have never relied on the truth to talk about the ACA. They say the mandate is a tax, and perhaps in a technical sense, it is. But it was never meant to be a broad revenue raiser. It was meant to be an incentive to push free riders into the market. It’s a sin tax, the sin in question being costing the rest of us money to get healthcare at the emergency room, or waiting until they are sick to start contributing.

That fact was part of what once made it acceptable to Republicans, Republicans who now sell their mandate’s taxing authority as some sort of lie. Well, it’s a lie they told repeatedly before the Obama Presidency was even close to reality, back in the days of the early Clinton Administration. It was a lie that the current Republican nominee told to his own people, then.

Republicans have adopted this line only now. It was never their original objection. What does that tell you? I mean, the mandate has always been a soft, tax-code based mechanism, and this was the case even when Romney was supporting it. This is nothing new. The only thing new is under what Constitutional provision this is justified, and that was the act of a Republican-appointed judge who’s gained a bit of a reputation for judicial activism, especially with the whole-cloth Citizens United decision.

Republicans seem to only seek out consistency in today’s rhetoric, which they repeat ad nauseam, with near identical phrasing and terminology. Same Frank Luntz approved Buzzwords, same sources, often enough. But if you go back a decade, this was the healthcare proposal of choice for their current candidate, and indeed for the GOP.

And why? Quite simply because the mandate is meant to be a market-friendly means of solving the free rider problem, after which a formalized market place can come in, and use the magic of the markets to drive down costs.

Why did Republicans come up with this? Because the alternative was taking the market out of at least the funding end of it altogether. They wanted to keep the insurance companies in business. They wanted to keep the system largely private.

That is the irony of opposing it now, especially after the plan worked in Massachusetts. It’s not even a question for them of whether it would work, or whether the principles of it are market based, the mandate a soft one, rather than a criminally levied fine. It’s essentially no different than lacking a tax break that for most Americans is ridiculously easy to qualify for. Folks talk about a tax hike on everybody, but that’s only if everybody suddenly lost coverage, a virtual impossibility

That’s why it was once palatable to Republicans.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore, and I have a theory as to why: the GOP’s been taken over by the hedge wizards of rhetoric and political theatre, folks unconcerned with true principle, or even practical appropriateness, but only with winning every political fight, no matter how petty.

The result of a decade and a half of this, though, has hardly been kind on the GOP. It’s turned a once proud party with a solid grasp on the political pulse of the nation into a tone-deaf, throbbing vein in the forehead den of conspiracy theorist and cranks. People listen in abject fear, thinking their country’s spiralling out of control, even though the truth is that policies hardly been allowed to move all that far, with certain notable exceptions.

To listen to the conservative media nowadays is to be made worse than ignorant, it’s to be given a whole, patently false view of events. Even if you could properly call not going too far into the tax status of the mandate a lie, what do you call the consistent efforts on the part of Republicans to convince people that the Mandate is a socialist, left-wing conspiracy, when it’s actually a conservative, market-based strategy that’s already been applied with success by the nominee for the party that now labels it communism?

Which is the more offensive, the Democrat’s unwillingness to openly call the mandate a tax, or the Republican’s unwillingness to admit that an older, saner version of itself not only found this acceptable, but had it as their preferred alternative to an actual government takeover of healthcare?

Little lie, meet the big lie of the Republican-driven healthcare debate: that the mandate wasn’t their idea to begin with. Republicans have been more than content to shape tax policy along these lines in the past, and more than content to penalize free riders. But all those principles don’t matter, next to winning a Presidential election against a Democrat who came into power with great political momentum. They are willing to sacrifice even their own principles to win, willing to engage in blatant, extended, compound acts of dishonesty in order to win.

But what do you have left to win for, if this becomes the way the Republican Party operates? We saw, almost a decade ago, the GOP make a massive effort to add a new set of healthcare entitlements to Medicare. Of course, many conservatives would have had their people do the exact opposite. Why didn’t the GOP do the exact opposite?

Here’s, I think, where we find the central delusion that’s overcome the good senses of the Tea Partiers: The central party turned to them because they needed people who had fervent support for defeating Democrats, even after many had forsaken the party to become independents or even Democrats. But the minute they aren’t necessary, the minute they lose relevance, expect the GOP to swing right back to doing what it was before 2006, because a GOP that does not appeal to the center, with its Democratic opponents now defeated, is just headed for another wave election sweeping them out.

The Republicans in 2000-2004 knew that if they didn’t handle things like the cost of prescriptions for seniors, or the gap between what Medicare paid for, and what things cost, they would pay the price for it.

And there you have it. The GOP sells this as a country eagerly following them to the right, but I think they vastly overestimate that eagerness. The GOP isn’t screaming this hard, fearmongering this much, steeping their rhetoric in such venom and apocalyptic stakes because they have people convinced, running alongside their bandwagon as eager converts. No! They’re using the rhetoric they’re using because they are no longer sure that if they don’t shout, and shout dissenters down, that they’re going to get heard.

That’s why I get called a socialist every two seconds by folks on the Red Column. That’s why Obama gets alleged to be a foreigner who’s a jihadi muslim marxist follower of Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright. If they didn’t take the Democrat’s reputations out back and beat them to death with baseball bats, they’d be worrying whether anybody was listening to them.

Notice how many Democrats don’t feel the same. There were many conspiracy theories about Bush, but Democrats tended to be less likely to indulge them. We want people to take us seriously, not laugh us off as conspiracy theorists.

Republicans, on the other hand, turned to folks like Glenn Beck. Credibility in the old disciplinary sense wasn’t important, instead was conning people into giving credibility to what folks would otherwise consider the most ridiculous of charges (and which many outsiders actually do consider ridiculous)

They don’t want to get themselves into a situation where they actually have to be held accountable to the facts, to reality of their situation. Why? Because both objectively, and by their own standards, they screwed things up, but they don’t want to change how they do things. They want to tamp down the outrage and discontent, and try sitting on the system to get it back to a contained situation where they can maintain control. They hope the outrage will die down over time, and that as the economy recovers, people will lose their taste for dissenting to their system.

It’s a dumb, desperate hope, in my opinion, because if your policies are as crappy as theirs, you or the interests you serve will do something stupid enough or awful enough to reignite opposition. Nobody had to hang on Bush’s bloody arms to hold him back. His own incompetence and intellectual inflexibility did the job for him. Romney, I imagine, will be just as clueless in his own way, a Wall Street type so out of touch with common concerns that he can’t even begin to realize that what his friends on Wall Street do is hazardous to America’s economic health.

Frank-
The Rebate checks are real, but what’s not real is all the negative hype your people have cooked up. All you have to give people is unwarranted pessimism and false conspiracy theories cooked up by politicians and whackos who could no longer count on people’s support without lying to get it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2012 1:20 PM
Comment #347479

“Frank-
The Rebate checks are real, but what’s not real is all the negative hype your people have cooked up. All you have to give people is unwarranted pessimism and false conspiracy theories cooked up by politicians and whackos who could no longer count on people’s support without lying to get it.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2012 1:20 PM

You mean like the same things we heard from the left for 8 years, when Bush was in office?

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 2:41 PM
Comment #347480

Stephen, you are a real piece of work. You deny obamacare is financed by taxes and then you say, “well technically, it is”. Then you go into an unproven, undocumented, rhetorical essay of liberal talking points; accusing the right of lying about Obama. I guess the best point you raise is that the right is lying about Obamatax, after you admit it is a tax. The rest of your BS is simply your opinion of what the right is doing based on the left’s talking points and not facts. This rage of yours is nothing more than trying to defend the indefensible, and trying to protect the inevitable downfall of Obama.

Frank and others are right, this is going to enrage the conservative movement, and whatever platform Obama was going to run on, has been kicked out from under him.

The events of yesterday have presented a platform for the GOP convention; and the right will be fired up to get rid of Obama and the Dems. What is the platform of the left; higher taxes, racism, obamacare, the economy?

Your whole purpose of making these baseless comments is to try; once again, to protect Obama from what everyone knows is true about him. And you have listed those things.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 29, 2012 2:58 PM
Comment #347482

Still on the “it’s ALL the GOPs fault” kick I see.

You talk about how this health care mandate travesty is actually a GOP idea, but I can’t seem to find where anybody other than some liberal Republican politicians and some right leaning think tanks supported the idea. Was there a national election where right leaning voters voted for a Republican candidate because he promised to take away their rights with such a health care mandate?

“There were many conspiracy theories about Bush, but Democrats tended to be less likely to indulge them.”

You got to be freakin joking. liberal Democrats started all those stupid conspiracy theories and promoted them on every media outlet they could.
The ONLY difference is that you bend over backwards to separate those liberals from the mainstream Democrats of the Party, and you bend over backwards to associate EVERY Republican with being a conspiracy theorist.

“The Rebate checks are real, but what’s not real is all the negative hype your people have cooked up”

Time will tell. Personally, I don’t think all your sugar coated utopian dreams are going to pan out how you are trying so hard to convince others that they will.
You see, dictating how private insurance will operate is already why our health care insurance is so expensive. So what’s going to happen when they are forced to cover tens of millions more people and probably hundreds of millions of dollars more in coverage expenses?
Even IF the insurance companies are willing to give you a hundred dollar “rebate” after all of that, they are still going to have to raise premiums and it’s going to be a hell of a lot more than that rebate.

“unwarranted pessimism and false conspiracy theories”

It’s neither of those things Stephen. It’s fear of the known and unknown that has tens of millions rejecting this intrusion into their lives. Known things like how government programs such as social security have created a nation of people dependent on government for their retirement. Known things like the tax rate of those who live in European socialist democracies.
And unknown things like those that you liberals won’t explain to people when they ask simple questions. Will my taxes go up to pay for your beliefs? If not, how do we pay for those tens of millions of people? Can I pick the plan of my choosing or am I limited to picking from plans chosen for me? Since government mandate will dictate who, how and what insurance companies cover, will private insurance be able to penalize me for not living what they have determined is a healthy lifestyle?
Seeing how the eventual failure of the ACA will lead to government run health care, will the government then be free to penalize me for not living what it has determined to be a healthy lifestyle? Will it try and control how much product a “private” company sells or how much product an individual is allowed to have? Could it dictate what our children bring to school for lunch? Will it create outrageous sin taxes for things it deems are not good for us?

Tell us Stephen, can you “count on people’s support without lying to get it” or are you willing to answer such questions truthfully?

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2012 3:32 PM
Comment #347484

SD wrote; “The problem in trying to turn the tax-coded mechanism back on us is that this was your tax code mechanism…”

Complete and utter bullshit. obama and the dems told us that obamacare was not a tax. It is a tax, and it was passed into law by dems. They lied and now SD wants to parse it. Good luck convincing voters who are not flaming libs.

Roberts managed to piss off nearly everyone by his ruling and I saw no credit being given him in any of the dem/lib posts above. I will give Roberts credit for denouncing the bill as coming under the “Commerce Clause”. This ruling is what really pisses off my lib friends. Roberts gave their constitutional theories a real hair-cut. We won’t be hearing all their usual garbage about the commerce clause any more.

Politicians love tax revenue but most dislike being associated with increasing taxes. Now, it will become very clear to millions of middle-class Americans who will experience new taxes just what the dems are up to. will these millions of voters show their approval of new taxes by voting for dems and libs? We will know the answer in five short months.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #347490

The rebate checks will go out to 12.8 million Americans, and average $151/household. This makes up for past overcharges by insurers for ‘administrative costs.’ In addition, private health care insurers will be limited in the amount of overhead they can charge in the future; in other words, no more soaring private health care costs driving up federal spending, and harming household budgets and small businesses attempting to provide benefits.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #347492

Hey phx…do you suppose we could get those caps you write about on cars, clothing and food. Some stupid dolts actually believe that capitalism can thrive by government setting prices. Hell phx, we don’t need no stinking competition, we’ll just legislate prosperity.

If I were a lib/socialist I would demand that obama and congress pass more taxes on things I don’t wish to purchase. I don’t like rutabagas or turnips so we should pass a tax on me and others to subsidize those who do.

I enjoy smoking but the majority doesn’t. How about a tax on those who don’t smoke? They are suppressing commerce by not smoking and greatly reducing government revenue by their obstinate behavior.

I believe an abortion tax is ripe for passing. I get no benefit from abortions, in fact, it reduces the number of future taxpayers and tax receivers. It is an anti-government conspiracy. If we had more babies being born there would be greater demand for things. Abortion reduces commerce. More babies means more voters. More voters means we wouldn’t have to continue to encourage illegals to come here to vote. Obviously, we have a shortage of dem/lib voters and my idea could resolve that problem. As these new babies grow up the libs can fill their little heads with socialist mush and by the time these robots are voting age the will vote in lock-step for more government and more “free stuff”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #347493

In just a couple of years the cost of my private insurance is supposed to rise to over $800 which is an increase of 400 percent.

If you on the left are making so much money that you can afford that kind of increase then you should be helping those poor Medicaid people who are going to get the fisterus, the green weenie, and the shaft all wrapped into one hellacious killer.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 29, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #347494

AMERICA…The Land of The Free Stuff.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #347495

Royal said:

“Hey phx…do you suppose we could get those caps you write about on cars, clothing and food. Some stupid dolts actually believe that capitalism can thrive by government setting prices. Hell phx, we don’t need no stinking competition, we’ll just legislate prosperity.”

Royal, have you ever noticed how the ignorant SOB’s on the left have never complained about the rising cost of college tuition and books? They are completely silent about the exorbitant salaries that university presidents get and how the price of college is far higher than the cost of living increases. Maybe it’s because those socialist SOB’s are teaching heads full of mush how to be a communist/socialist; or perhaps it’s because they are part of the intelligentsia; or perhaps it’s because Obama now controls the student loan program and is paying back his socialist supporters with tax dollars. Screw the students who end up owing money for the next 20 years.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 29, 2012 5:27 PM
Comment #347498

Royal Flush,
Try Chantrix. It works.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 5:50 PM
Comment #347499

As I said now it falls on congress, the administration, and the voters. Yesterday the Romney campaign recieved over $4mil. in donations after the announsment. You Democrats are spikeing the ball now but will you do the same in November. IMO there was a method in Roberts maddness yesterday by turning this over to the voters. A majority of people all along did not want this bill as a whole, so also IMO 2010 all over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good luck LIBs LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way phx8 $151. today is chump change and may pay someones light bill for a month, or a couple cases of beer.

Posted by: KAP at June 29, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #347501

KAP,
If you know anyone receiving a check who does not want it, please send it to me. I drink beer. The good stuff. Terminal Gravity IPA. Longboard Lager. Trumer Pils. I promise, I will do that $151 justice. I also have a taste for Pinot Noir & Cabernets which could easily become more properly developed with a few checks for $151. I also collect stamps, and have my eye on some Navigation and Commerce issues from Nossi-Be. I know what to do with the money. Please have it forwarded to me.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #347502

Good observation Bill. I wonder how much “stuff” Daugherty has and if I could qualify for some of it. He has a newer car than me and that’s just not fair. He is saving on gasoline with his new car and that is reducing commerce. We need those gas taxes and what he is doing is just anti-government. Hell, if we all drove gas guzzlers we could put more people to work so he is also anti-labor.

I have to pay for my dental care and I am just damn sick and tired of that. Will obama do something to even the playing field. I believe SD and his lib friends should pay for my dental care too cause it’s just fair and right. Surely there is something in the constitution to help me out.

I need more vacation time too. Those damn Europeans get two or three more weeks than I do and it’s only fair that Americans should enjoy that as well. To hell with company profits, they should use those profits to pay me for not working so hard.

As soon as I can get more “free stuff” I can stop working all together and that will be wonderful.

We need to fix our unconstitutional education system too. Why should some kids get A’s and others get C’s, D’s or F’s? It ruins their self esteem and could affect their future job choices. We must level the playing field here cause it’s only fair and right.

Bill…what “free stuff” do you want? What injustice could SD and the libs fix for you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 6:03 PM
Comment #347504

Sorry phx…those checks should come to me as I am not a LUSH and will spend it for food. My needs are greater than yours and I wish to invoke the “Welfare Clause”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 6:07 PM
Comment #347505

Frank: “Do you have documentation on this or is it another liberal talking point that has morphed into a fact?”

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll and two things to take from it:

1. People hate the bill while supporting what the bill does, because the GOP has a well funded smear campaign against it.

2. A good chunk of people opposed to the bill want more reform, not less, suggesting they do not support the plan of the GOP to completely derail and destroy the bill.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at June 29, 2012 6:14 PM
Comment #347506

Royal Flush,
A lush? Tsk, tsk. Need I remind you, the very first miracle performed by Jesus Christ was to help out at a wedding. When the party at Cana ran out, he provided more. That was the very first thing miracle.

Buyt perhaps you hate that miracle. Very well. I also happen to be a gourmand. If you know of anyone who does not want their $151 rebate, thanks to Obamacare, then they can send it to me, and I will use it to prepare the very finest foods. I’m a good cook, and I use fresh, local ingredients when possible. It could be Columbia River King Salmon, simply cooked and absolutely killer good. Perhaps the money could be invested in a relatively inexpensive North Indian Chicken Curry, or Moroccan Lamb? Osso Buco, I can do. And although it’s not local due to the shrimp, New Orleans Style Shrimp and Grits is deliscious. So please, send me those rebate checks. Tell your friends. I wouldn’t want them compromised by outrageous tax increases.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 6:50 PM
Comment #347507

Well phx, you do make my mouth water. But, that food sounds very expensive and won’t feed the “flock”. So, send me the money and I’ll serve hamburgers and fries to all who are hungry and place whatever is left into baskets to distribute to those who couldn’t come to my party.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 7:11 PM
Comment #347508

When I read this statement at the very beginning, I am attempted to believe the poll is partisan:

“The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama’s reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26.”

And later in the post the Reuters (one of the conductors of the poll) continued to accuse Republicans of influencing independents. What kind of comment is this for a serious poll taker to say?

However Adam Ducker, I checked out you poll link and this is what I read:

1.56% against the healthcare overhaul and 44% in favor.

2.61% of Americans are against the mandate, while 39% are in favor.

3.Good for Republicans; 45% said they are more likely to vote for someone who will repeal the law, 26% say makes no difference.
4.“Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions…

Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees”

It depends how this question was asked; however most people like these things but do not necessarily like the law. This point proves absolutely nothing.

5.It’s divided along party lines…surprise! Although there is a higher percent of Democrats who oppose the law than there are Republicans who like it.

6.Opposition among independents is growing: 63% oppose the law and 37% like it. This is important, because Obama needs the independents to win.

7.And I am sure this is what you were talking about when you said people don’t think it goes far enough;

“The poll found that a large number of Americans - including about one-third of Republicans and independents who disagree with the law - oppose it because it does not go far enough to fix healthcare…Seventy-one percent of Republican opponents reject it overall, while 29 percent feel it does not go far enough, while independent opponents are divided 67 percent to 33 percent. Among Democratic opponents, 49 percent reject it overall, and 51 percent wish the measure went further.”

The question is, what do people mean when they say it don’t go far enough: Were they talking about TORT reform, or were they talking about Insurance across state lines?

8.Lastly, “There was party division in Americans’ view of the individual mandate. Overall, 61 percent of Americans oppose requiring all U.S. residents to own health insurance. Among Republicans, the percentage rose to 81 percent, and it was 73 percent among independents. But a majority of Democrats - 59 percent - favor the individual mandate.”

This poll was conducted by asking 1043 Americans. It is not accurate because we don’t know their ages, party affiliation, and most of all we don’t know if they were likely voters. Who cares what people think, if they are not voters.

You present a very weak poll, but I will continue to say, the Democrats and Obama are going to pay a very heavy price in November. The 2010 election was about Obamacare and the Dems lost a lot of seats in the House, Senate, and Governorships. What makes you think they will vote differently this year?

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 7:22 PM
Comment #347509

“People hate the bill while supporting what the bill does,..”

Adam,

It’s crazy but true. The truth of the matter is that the more that people know about the bill, the more they like it.

Most of the bill has not even been implemented. I suspect that the GOP is going to eat a lot of crow as the bill begins to take effect.

The bill isn’t perfect. However, it has a started a process of reform.

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2012 7:24 PM
Comment #347510

Royal, perhaps phx8 should save his money. If Obama gets another 4 years; by the time he is finshed with the country we will be eating black beans and rice and drinking water contaminated by fracking, like the other 3rd world nations.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 29, 2012 7:29 PM
Comment #347512

To the Republicans I would like to express my sorrow for your loss but I won’t so HA HA you lose get bent.

Posted by: Jeff at June 29, 2012 7:48 PM
Comment #347513

The 2010 election was about Obamacare and the Dems lost a lot of seats in the House, Senate, and Governorships. What makes you think they will vote differently this year?

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012

Frank, that was a very astute observation. Voters watched how this bill won approval and were nauseated by the deal making, pandering, and payoffs that were involved. obama has granted waivers already under this bill to thousands of companies. I wonder how obama will handle waivers should obamacare ever be fully implemented.

We do know that obamacare will employ about 16,000 more IRS folks so I guess SD is wrong about it not being a “real” tax. Those agents will be “real” and there will be “real” consequences for not paying the obamapiper.

I sure hope SD believes in fairness and let’s me use his new car 50% of the time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 7:52 PM
Comment #347514

Jeff…Ha, Ha…we’ve seen the light and are joining you. I am coming for some of your “stuff” real soon. Be a gentleman and have it all packed for me. You’ll have my bank routing number soon and I expect deposits every week. Thanks!

PS…I don’t wish to share your wife or kids.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 7:56 PM
Comment #347515

“or were they talking about Insurance across state lines..”

Frank,

Do you realize that conservatives opposed one of the original provisions of Obamacare that provided for a national market for individual health insurance contracts? It would have amended the McCarren Ferguson Act which delegates insurance regulation to the states.

It’s ironic that conservative “states’ rights” proponents consistently advocate “across state line” sale of health insurance which would effectively eliminate an individual state’s right to actually regulate contracts sold to their citizens.

In order to provide for “across state line sales”, federal law (McCarren-Ferguson Act) would have to be amended providing for a federal regulatory scheme superseding an individual state’s right to control contracts within its jurisdiction. In essence, a state’s regulatory scheme would be replaced by a federal standard.

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2012 7:56 PM
Comment #347517

I would like to see a poll of young working people who have opted not to participate in their employers insurance plan. Will they be overjoyed at having the IRS dipping into their paychecks and be so amused that they will give a matching amount to reelect obamamamamam when he declares that it is legal for him to run for a third term as king.

I wonder what name obama will choose for his kingship. King Barry the First has a nice ring. King Adolf, or King Josef sounds even better. King Vlad rolls right off the tongue as does King Mao. OH, wait…he is a humble man and I suspect he will prefer the simple title: CHAIRMAN.

I have petitioned our local government to name a street after the king when he chooses by what expletive he wishes to be called.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #347518

RF boy are you going to be disapponited with my bank account. But to be serious I hate my job but I need there health plan now I have more options .

Posted by: Jeff at June 29, 2012 8:19 PM
Comment #347520

Frank-
Did you know Daily Kos actually discourage Truthers? See, unlike you fellows, we don’t circle our wagons around the fringe nuts. We don’t encourage a large chunk of our people to believe a lie like the Birthers do, that is demonstrably false.

You didn’t hear the same things from the left. We had evidence for the outrages we spoke of, the failure to properly vet intelligence, the futility of the Iraq war as a means to fight the terrorists, the shame of not having successfully concluded Afghanistan before leaving on the next military adventure, the shame of having failed to get Bin Laden all these years, ultimately leaving the job to his successor.

I don’t personally believe that Bush had anybody dynamite the levees, but I do believe his policy for disaster mitigation was a disaster itself. I don’t believe Bush deliberately deceived us in order to get his war, I just believe he was eager enough to take the fight to Iraq, for many reasons, that he allowed the institutional pressures within his administration to ostracize anybody who thought otherwise from the process.

See, I don’t have to see Bush as particularly evil to think his policies were a disaster, or to feel like strongly opposing him. I think there are reasonable premises on which to argue he just wasn’t up to the job.

What I also think is that Republicans can stand to admit just how bad he was, or how much he discredited the Right’s favorite policies.

So you can stop with that false equivocation right now. The only reason you’re doing it is because you want Obama to look just as bad, so you can define down the deviation of Bush from the norms of competence. It’s the only way to pitch Republicans as reasonable choices. Otherwise, people look at the last ten years, and remember what a disaster most of your policies were to start with.

Billinflorida-
I’m only giving you Barack Obama’s argument for the Mandate.

Here it is:

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

Oh, I’m sorry, that was all just a lie. I will admit to you that I deliberately deceived you, bad boy that I am, with that first sentence. That wasn’t a quote from Barack Obama, that was a quote from Mitt Romney, just two years ago.

Flip, flop.

It’s the stupid bastards leading your party who have cut their own legs out from under them. This is what you get for running the man behind Romneycare against the man behind Obamacare. Any and all claims that you have an advantage vanish in a puff of logic, if you think about things for ten seconds.

It gets worse if you actually know the Mandate’s history before then. You are the liar here, if you know anything about that, because essentially you’re acting like it’s a marxist police state provision, shot up from hell to possess the mind of Barack Obama, when really, it’s just a slightly modified version of your candidate’s old policy.

And I know you’re right now marvelling about the cleverness of John Roberts, or some BS like that, but if I did a google search of your comments about how the decision was going to come down, I just wonder what your predictions have been, over the past few months.

The only baseless comments here are your criticism, which you just spew because you think you can win an argument by insisting that you’re winning it, and I’m not. Only problem is, I’ve never been playing your rigged game, I’ve been arguing my case from evidence.

kctim-
You can’t seem to find Romney Care? Bull****. You don’t want to admit it. People on the Right nowadays have no institutional memory. You’ve gone over to being reflexively contrarian and critical, but with your people trying to have things both ways on so many policies, so many items of accountability, it’s impossible for your people not to twist themselves in pretzels trying to avoid what’s staring them in the face.

And please, this reliance on the left-wing media myth is just pathetic. Any time you don’t want to face an ugly reality, for instance not getting the promised shoot-down of Obamacare, you guys go into this fantasy mode, where you make up all kinds of crazy crap, including the idea that it’s all a hoax by the liberal media!

You’ve reduced practically everything to the politics of your sources, and I’m sorry to say, that has little bearing on whether people are right, or telling the truth.

Meanwhile, something else has snuck up on you, and mugged the Republican Party and conservative movement of its brains: Conservative media bias. Bias is a problem for anybody, but it doesn’t get better when you purposefully create it, and that’s what Republicans have done.

And the real scary thing is, this media bias of yours, has people scared of something that’s not real, and folks who are scared of things that are not real, do dumb and scary things. I mean, you have major media figures arguing like they’re in some kind of occupied nation now, spreading the mental sickness of your side’s weirdos in the mainstream.

Meanwhile the truth is so damn prosaic, it’s not even funny. Your people have successfully stifled most of the change for now. Even if it was as bad as you thought, it’s not going anywhere. The only trouble is, nobody likes that it’s not going anywhere. They want jobs back. They want the government functional again, not rocking the boat with dumbass stunts like the debt-ceiling debacle, which your side seems intent on starting all over again! They want this country out of the wars that your folks can’t seem to be quit of. They want some kind of reform, even if you’ve soured them on a general notion of Obama’s healthcare plan. That, by a margin of 77%!

As far as your beliefs go, if you want to go take over a country and rule it with an iron fist, then you can get what you want, and never have to worry about anybody else ever forcing anything on you again. But as long as you’r staying here, you have to live with the laws the majorities in Congress pass and the President signs. You’re part of the electorate that decides these things, and can influence them, and others to get a better approximation of what you want from Congress, But this democratic republic was never, and will never be designed so you don’t have to follow laws you don’t like.

Royal Flush-
Not complete and utter BS. I have a quote up there from Mitt Romney.

You want to run on perpetual tax revolt, go ahead. But the truth is, in this case, this was your policy. You’re just too poisoned by your own rhetoric to see it for what it is.

I mean, you’re in a neat dilemma here. Either you trust that Romney is truly going to repeal the mandate and everything, in which case we can say that he’s so utterly spineless that he’s completely flip-flopped on his own policy for political benefit (which raises questions about his lack of principles), or you realize that your main candidate, if he sticks to his principles, is what you call a RINO, and the thought occurs to you that if he’s anything like Bush, he’s going to screw you just like Bush Screwed the Republican Party.

After all your efforts to purge the party of dirty RINOs, you’re essentially making a dirty RINO the leader of your party!

The irony is rich, but lost on many of you, because you’ve chosen to follow a party that leads its people in perpetual political circles, trying to maintain their loyalty and artificially pump up their enthusiasm.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2012 9:06 PM
Comment #347521

The McCarren-Ferguson Act was passed by Democrats. They had complete control of the House, Senate, and Presidency; if the McClarren-Furguson Act was “a state’s regulatory scheme”; it was Democrats who made it so.

“The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.”

You tell me; “Do you realize that conservatives opposed one of the original provisions of Obamacare that provided for a national market for individual health insurance contracts? It would have amended the McCarren Ferguson Act which delegates insurance regulation to the states.”

It was Democrats who voted Obamacare into law, without the help of the Republicans. The Democrats have always been against Insurance companies being able to sell insurance across state lines. The insurance companies fell under the catch-all Commerce Clause. Why did they need the Republican vote to pass it in Obamacare.

McCain ran on a ticket in 2008 of allowing Insurance companies to compete across state lines.

Concerning states rights; you play the same old gotcha game as the rest of the left on WB. There are cases for States rights and there are cases for Federal rights. Example: there are many states which have CCW laws and some states have reciprocity laws with other states and some states don’t; the Congress tried to pass Federal reciprocity laws, which each state would have to have recognized, but democrats defeated it. In this case the Federal Law would have been more convenient for everyone. You make the same ignorant attempt to paint Republicans as only supporting states rights, and that is not true.

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #347522

SD

You sound drunk. Go have another beer, vodka sour, tom collins, or whatever your heart wants to soak itself in.

What you have put to print up there is nothing but past manure that the fan chewed up. Road apples that you could not get out of the way of.

Your party has the dirty leaderless scoundrel. He is he liar-in-chief. The manipulator par excellant. The man of a thousand broken promises. He is a ghost who 50 million people voted for that they knew absolutely nothing about. But they voted just the same, for a man in an empty suit.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 29, 2012 9:28 PM
Comment #347529

“Your party has the dirty leaderless scoundrel. He is he liar-in-chief. The manipulator par excellant. The man of a thousand broken promises. He is a ghost who 50 million people voted for that they knew absolutely nothing about. But they voted just the same, for a man in an empty suit.”

All that coming from minds filled with nothing but hate, contempt, and an irrational fear of a black man with a strange name…….who happens to be a whole lot smarter than a whole crapload of his opposition
Keep going by all means….it is just funnier than hell watching the squirming and squealing taking place on the red side of the aisle. Boy, your handlers are gonna be pissed and come down on you all like white on rice.
Good luck…….

Posted by: jane doe at June 29, 2012 11:22 PM
Comment #347548

tom humes-
You seem to be winning “Anti-Obama Catchphrase Bingo.” Congratulations.

You trash talk my arguments, but you don’t seem to be able to respond to my arguments on real facts. Do you just not think yourself up to responding to that? Do you think you’re too good to actually try and research the claims, see if I’m right? Are you just afraid that if you go out there and find out the truth, you might not be enthusiastic enough anymore to vote for your guys, or against ours?

You can’t win in the long term this way. Right now, even, you’re demonstrating why the party fell from power in the first place: you were so interested in winning with your preferred policies and ideological positions in place, that you forgot the most important thing was that the policies succeed, both for our country’s sake, and your own.

You can’t just trash talk us, you have to outperform us in the real world. Bush’s policies outperformed nobody. Growth was slowing and job creation was anemic even before the Great Recession. Your policies did not create the utopia your movement promised, they did even worse than Carter or Ford’s, or anybody else for the last seventy some-odd years. You won’t even let yourself let them go, and now you’re asking people for another try.

Your side had its chance, it doesn’t deserve another on these ideas. They don’t work. That’s not to say, nonsensically enough, that you’re just going to have to agree with Democrats on everything, but you can agree on the things we’re right on, and you can choose new policies and come up with new ideas to better express your principles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2012 9:04 AM
Comment #347550

Stephen Daugherty, we might also say to you, “your side had its chance”. Instead of being serious and working through bipartisanship to better the economy and create real jobs; Obama and the Democrats chose to expend their energy and majority on passing a national healthcare that no one wanted under Clinton and still don’t want under Obama.

McCain lost the presidency in 2008 for 3 reasons:

1. President Bush’s policies were not popular among Republicans; he violated conservative ideals and the party paid the price.

2. McCain was the choice of the establishment Republican Party and not the choice of conservatives; therefore, there was no excitement to put him in office.

3. Obama ran on a transparency and change platform; but as we have seen, he is nothing more than the same old partisan politician, no transparency and his change is to grow government even more than Bush and he has done nothing for the economy.

Now, your argument will be that he has; but the reality of real America is nothing has changed. Even VP Biden made the statement that most Americans are in a depression.

Obama has nothing to run on; your argument is that the conservatives are winning because they trash talk the current administration. The majority of the MSM is liberal and has done everything in their power to not only protect Obama, but to also get him re-elected. The only opposition to Obama (what you call trash talk) is coming from conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet. All of which the left can also use, except for the fact liberal talk radio has no following, liberal cable news (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) is a dismal failure, and liberal Internet sites are controlled by liberals like yourself, whose sole purpose is to protect Obama and his leftist administration at all costs.

The Tea Party is truely a grass roots movement that has come into existence because Conservatives want to take back their Republican Party. Now, I know the left loves to attack the TP, much like Pelosi calling it astroturf, but this is only liberal attacks. The TP had a great impact on the 2010 election, and even though we have moved out of the streets, the TP is still very active. The TP is slowly effecting Congressional Primaries across the nation. And the TP support is growing.

I, as well as other conservatives have complained that Bush left his conservative base; but when have you ever, ever been critical of Obama?

Stephen, you seem to be hammered by some on the right, and I partly understand why. You seem to have a martyr complex; you believe if your “facts” are trash talked, that somehow you are suffering for Obama. From what I have seen, your facts are nothing more than your personal opinions.

I will tell you the facts: the conservatives are enraged over Obamacare and the taxes it imposes. The voters have been against Obamacare by 55-60% ever since it was passed on a party line vote. The only salvation 55-60% of the voters saw was the firewall of the SCOTUS. That firewall has failed the American people, for whatever reason, and the outrage of the 2010 election is going to be seen in November. Not just to defeat Obama and repeal Obamacare; but Democrat House and Senate members are going to pay a heavy price. These are the facts Stephen.

Back to your point; Obama had a real chance to work with the Congress and do something for the American people; but he chose to pass a radical agenda. So, he had his chance and blew it. The only ones supportive of what he has done, is the small 20% of radical liberals.

I replied to Adam Ducker’s link in the about Comment #347508; a poll by Reuters/Ipsos, which is not accurate because it does not poll potential voters; but even at that, it shows Obama losing among independents (his critical needed voters) and it shows a continued dislike for Obama’s major legislation (Obamacare). Obamacare is not in the top percent of America’s concerns, as the economy and jobs are; but I make a prediction it will move to the top in the polls of the next few weeks. The voters thought the SC would take care of this problem, but not having done so, it will become a major problem for the voters.

Posted by: Frank at June 30, 2012 10:04 AM
Comment #347552

SD

What facts are you talking about? Facts = truth.

Your comment #347548 contains no facts. You just use rhetoric and call that an argument and fact. You cannot argue against a negative. That is your specialty. Your numbers are twisted and distorted and that is what you call fact and arguement.

Go back to your beer.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2012 2:55 PM
Comment #347560

Frank, you must be a prophet; the polls are beginning to come out and what you say is correct:

The first SC result polls are coming out; and it looks like the polls are consistent with previous polls:

“Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.

Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/29/new-poll-voters-dislike-supreme-court-s-obamacare-ruling.html

The 58% who disapprove of the way Obama handled HC are consistent with the percent wanting obamacare repealed.

“The poll was conducted by Douglas Schoen, a Democratic pollster who has worked for the campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and other candidates. A national random sample of 600 likely voters was interviewed June 28, immediately following the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent.”

“Against Romney, Obama maintains a narrow lead in the presidential race, 47 percent to 44 percent. Twenty-one percent said that they were open to changing their mind. State-by-state polls are more useful in predicting the actual outcome of a presidential contest, but national horse-race numbers are something to talk about while the election is still months away. The president’s approval rating stands at 45 percent. Fifty-nine percent of poll respondents said they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction—down slightly from about a year ago, in May 2011, when 65 percent said the country was on the wrong track.
Even as those polled said that they prefer Romney to Obama on health care—as well as almost every other issue, with the exception of terrorism, foreign policy, and education—voters said that they trust Democrats more than Republicans overall on the major questions facing the nation, 37 percent to 32 percent.”

An Obama 47% to 44% lead over Romney still shows Obama with less than 50%. No president has ever been able to win re-election with polls less than 50%, leading up to the election. 22% are also willing to change their mind; they would certainly not be changing to support Obama, because there are no legitimate polls showing Obama with more than 50%. According to Douglas Schoen’s poll, 59% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction; and I am certain they don’t mean America needs to be more socialist or liberal.

SD, your argument that Romney is in favor of a tax to support the mandate doesn’t mean a thing. First of all his HC plan was in MA, a state. States have the right to do anything they want. Secondly, Romney has said he would repeal obamacare and that is more than Obama is wiling to do. In case you haven’t seen all the polls, a majority want obamacare repealed. Stephen, you’re blowing smoke when you try to tie MA’s HC plan into obamacare. Nobody cares what MA has except for MA and they are liberal. The rest of America don’t want it.

Anyway, thanks to Conservatives who have put GOP governors in most states and these governors are refusing to implement obamacare until after the November elections; thus not allowing pewople to get hooked on the scam HC plan.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 30, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #347561

Look what the WH dumped to the press on Friday night; this is making the rounds on Facebook. Wish I could get a pay raise. While all Americans are losing wealth, Obama is taking care of his thugs. I guess it’s one last pay boost before he heads back to Chicago:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/friday-night-news-dump-white-house-salaries-edition-127779.html

Posted by: TomT at June 30, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #347567

Frank-
As I recall it, we started with the Stimulus, while your side started with trying to stop the stimulus and punishing the Senators who crossed the aisle to support us.

As I recall it, we supported keeping GM and the domestic car industry in general a going concern, while Mitt Romney and other Republicans, especially those with foreign automakers as constituents said to let it all fail.

And what was the first move of the supposedly more job-oriented Republican majority in the House? Was it to put forwards more conservative, but still acceptable legislation that Democrats could agree with? No, it was to flood the legislature with Partisan Agenda Wishlist items like Abortion, to force fiscal showdowns which wracked the markets with uncertainty and to reject out of hand any legislation proposed by Barack Obama.

You don’t have any room to talk about jobs, especially when the chamber of Congress you have under your control isn’t doing its job. And no, putting a whole bunch of agenda items like gutting regulations and turning Medicare into a voucher system doesn’t count.

As for your three reasons McCain lost.

1) is true in part,but he didn’t merely lose among Republicans, he got his butt kicked with everybody.

2) The Republican Party self-identifies almost 70% as conservatives. The real problem is that Republicans can’t nominate a flaming wingnut and expect to win, and they know it, so they go for the Mavericks and the Moderates. I mean has it sunk in yet that you’ve chosen a guy to the left of McCain this time? I don’t suppose it has yet.

3) That’s your opinion, and it’s largely built on another imperative: Whatever liberals and Democrats said about Bush, say it about Obama, no matter how poorly it fits.

Obama has plenty of achievements. You’re just too busy finding reasons to discount every one of them to notice. You love talking about how the “liberal media” is doing him such wonderful favors. God. The Tea Party and their fearmongering got plenty of coverage. The “liberal” media outlets often pass on your side’s criticisms without even looking at them closely.

Ah, but you have to see it as a political bias problem in your opponent’s favor, because God help you if things are as bad as everybody else is telling you. You’ve wrapped yourself in such a cocoon of bias that you actually think the Federal Government is on the verge of kicking down the door to get your guns.

Pelosi is right about the astroturf. You know what that means, right? It means an organization that says that its grassroots actually gets most of its support and influence from Washington insiders.

Your so-called grassroots organizations are founded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, led by long time Washington insiders like Dick Armey, who was in the Congress for decades. That Patients rights outfit was led by the former HealthSouth CEO Rick Scott, a billion dollar medicare cheat.

Take a good long second look at who it is who backs you up out there, and ask in what universe they count as grassroots. Or maybe, it’s just a term you use to make yourself feel good.

As for Suffering for Obama? Holy **** is that delusional. I might be properly described as long-suffering, but I do it because your people have been running away from reality from day one.

For one thing, Conservatives are constantly enraged nowadays. They don’t seem to have a normal, calm emotional response to policy changes they don’t like nowadays, even if they are ideas that were originally theirs. You will chase yourself in circles to avoid being in agreement with Barack Obama, and it’s sad to watch. Romney, as the quote reminds us, once was wholeheartedly for the mandate, as were many Republicans. But since this, among other ideas, have been adopted by Democrats, they’ve flip-flopped just so Obama can’t get credit.

They could have agreed with him, and said, we’re glad to see Obama’s come to our side on this now. You could have even had the pleasure of seeing a few liberal’s heads explode. But no, you’ve decided that defeating him is most important, so you can try and make that claim that Obama’s achieved nothing with his great chance.

The sorry thing is, that for all your effort, he still managed to achieve the most a Democratic President has in generation. So you have to be corrosively critical of everything he’s done.

You want to know what I would criticize the President for? Well, that’s the tricky part. Most of what’s problematic with what the Obama administration’s done is essentially related to his failure to rollback Bush policies. And that failure? Well, who’s done the most to ensure that failure? Who’s filibustered any strong movement to the left? Who has consistently fought to preserve the status quo, fearmongering any shift away from Bush’s policies?

When it comes down to it, my biggest problem is that change isn’t happening fast enough, and it just seems to me that conservatives are the ones doing the most to ensure that this remains the case. Why go after Obama’s more minimal faults, when yours are so much more glaring, so much more the source of the problem?

Last, let me blunt on this: it’s the mandate, primarily, that they don’t like- Mitt Romney’s Mandate. But the ACA isn’t just the Mandate, and the other provisions poll much, much better. Guess what we’re going to take this opportunity to tell people about?

Tom Humes-
No facts? I referenced earlier arguments I made, stated what the truth was: the ten years after Bush’s tax cut consistently underperformed the job creation of the ten years before, and whatever decades you go back from the start of that policy, back to when they started keeping track of job numbers. And that’s even if you just count the Months of job increases, and don’t subtract the job losses, which are considerable under his watch.

Growth did average lower during the next ten years after that, than the ten years before that. FACT. You can prove it.

Any idiot can drive by with a comment that says, your numbers are twisted and false. I’ve proved my point, can you prove yours? I will tell you the dates, and publish the numbers so that anybody here can replicate what I say.

You? You’ll continue to get the facts wrong, and try character attacks, instead. My family would probably be saying WTF about the beer thing, by the way. I don’t even toast with champagne. Hell, I don’t even drink soda, and that’s not even a religious requirement of my faith!

Go back to your beer. You’re more likely to have one nearby than me.

Billinflorida-
It means everything. What’s your alternative? 77% recently said they wanted healthcare reform. How is that consistent with what you’re concluding?

It isn’t.

Here’s your dirty little secret: you bought the poll results you talk about with a years long campaign of disinformation. Poll people about the generalities, and you get the poll numbers folks like Rick Scott bought with their astroturfed opposition groups.

Poll people about the insurance regulations, and they like them. Poll people about giving people help to afford healthcare, and they want it. Poll people about banning pre-existing condition restrictions, about banning unequal costs for women’s healthcare, and it’s popular.

Your poll results are nothing more than a superficial political gloss over people’s real opinions.

As for Romney’s tax? So, you’ve bought Romney’s BS. That’s how you can pretend he’s not a RINO, so you don’t break out in hives voting for him. You simply, as you did with Bush, swallow your need to insist on what you term real conservatism, so you can see the Republican elected. It seems the only people Republicans expect to act like conservatives these days are Democrats. All others can get waivers for when they’re up for election.

This is how you got into your position with Bush in the first place.

The Mandate was a national version of the state policy. It’s actually a conservative policy, but you’ve declared it marxist for political purposes. Given that, why is Marxism okay anywhere? Why are you giving Romney a pass on this? Is it just what you are so intent on electing a Republican, that you’ll vote for any Republican, just as long as they can win?

LOL. It’s just too rich. The circle is complete. The Tea Party is dying, and if Romney is elected, it’s dead.

TomT-
Still down since 2009.

I swear, you folks are suckers for context free BS criticisms.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2012 7:24 PM
Comment #347579

I think the biggest problem with the GOP nowadays is that although it’s willing to make the sacrifices to policy necessary to appeal to the center at times, it’s hardly ever willing to admit it. Additionally, with their tendency to follow the rhetorical logic of opposition, that is, “if he’s for it I must be against it”, there’s this surreal mutation of GOP policy going on. What was once perfectly conservative becomes left-wing marxism at its worse. A tax penalty they come up with becomes a job-killing tax increase on everybody.

I find myself just hanging my head, when looking at how everything gets moved around, and wondering “When does the hurting stop?”

I mean, sure, you can win every argument in the short term if you take all sides of it at once, which Romney done in this case, promising to kill a national version of what he signed into law on the state level.

It seems if you want to boil it down, Romneycare was going to be what made him more electable in 2000, or 2008, but now the GOP’s decided to go the other way, he’ll weathervane his way towards saying it’s wrong.

And the GOP will accept this. It will accept what it has to accept, in order to to keep Democrats from taking over again. If it seems something is losing the base, they’ll pull some stunt to get them back.

But what do you think Conservatives will do if they’re concerned the rest of the country will turn on them, or not elect their people?

Oh, that’s right, we’ve seen them make that compromise. Look at John Roberts, what he did this week. He could have struck things down, he could have joined the other justices. Instead, he delivers a result that has many of the right wing folks calling him a traitor.

And look what Republicans themselves did, after months of raging at establishment Republicans. They picked a prototypical establishment Republican!

But ask them about it, and they’ll say, no, no, he’s a real conservative! But of course, if you were listening to what they said, many Republicans said the exact opposite.

Ah, but isn’t this the age of the Tea Party, where a newer, harderline conservatism rules? Didn’t 2010 confirm that America wanted strong-brew conservatism? Apparently not ehough so that the Tea Party faction of the GOP could nam the nominee.

What a choice: be co-opted or lose.

The truth of the matter is, most adult-run organizations should realize that there isn’t life, especially not in a democratic republic, which doesn’t involve compromise, and those who seek live without compromise often seek their own ruin.

But the organizations that truly make their own situations hell are the ones who rationalize their compromise to such an extent that they can no longer truly tell illusion from reality on what their concession means.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 1:36 AM
Comment #347581

SD

“But the organizations that truly make their own situations hell are the ones who rationalize their compromise to such an extent that they can no longer truly tell illusion from reality on what their concession means.”

Fits the democratic party to a “T”.

Posted by: tom humes at July 1, 2012 9:02 AM
Comment #347583

tom humes-
Why?

The problem with trying to turn this argument back, as you’ve attempted with so many others is that Democrats know and understand that whether they like it or not, negotiations with the other side of the aisle, and the moving of the party towards the American political center (or that political center towards it) is necessary.

In other words, Democrats have a healthy sense of the give and take required to get things done.

Republicans, on the other hand, don’t. Witness the first TARP vote, which arguably worsened the financial crisis. Witness Republicans saying that the basic problem with the GOP was that it wasn’t conservative enough, even though it lost to a coalition of moderate to left interests. Witness Republicans pushing the whole Deficit thing through 2011, tone deaf to the effect that the whole debt ceiling scare was having on the economy and the American people.
You keep on trying to push things further and further to the right, but when it comes time to deal with a national political stage, you nominate somebody who is considered by many Republicans, if not most, to be a poor conservative.

You rationalize this by saying that you need somebody who can defeat Obama, but implicit in that idea is that the folks the Tea Party might choose would not have broad enough appeal- that is, that the strong brew conservatives could not convince enough people to vote for them.

You have Romney now as your candidate because he has a reputation as a moderate. Whether he can maintain that reputation as the Right Wing of the Republican party puts pressure on him to keep the faith is an open question. But he represents a part of your party that is under increasing attack by its core base activists, at least in terms of his origins.

Sooner or later, though, if he caters too much to your people, he loses the moderate middle, the center of this country. Obama can appeal to America’s appetite for normalcy, it’s true conservatism- the resistance to excessive change.

The Republicans have had to go much more radical than I remember them being, but they’ve convinced themselves that their behavior is normal. At the same time, they blindly try to move towards normalcy to appeal to people, but they won’t let their people get all that middle of the road, at least not as a conscious thing.

So, the Republicans tie themselves up in ideological knots, rationalizing departures from dogma they’ve set up as inviolable and sacrosanct. In the process, though, their policies mutate, and they ironically find it in themselves to justify things like running massive deficits and running up huge spending increases as conservative (say because the spending is defense-oriented, or the gap comes from a tax cut)

The GOP didn’t go out of its way not to act like “real” conservatives, it just mutated in this direction because of the need to fight and win every battle with the Democrats and Liberals, no matter what the cost, and under the pressure of what your people consider an apocalyptic challenge to the future of America, the GOP’s gotten even more intense in its process of rationalization and compromise by hypocrisy. In a way, Romney is truly a representative candidate for the party. His inability to maintain a consistent position, his willingness to take what was once a conservative policy, and throw it under the bus to position himself Opposite enough from Obama, etc.

Romney may not have been the candidate many Republicans wanted to represent them, but he may be the candidate they deserve, the candidate who indicates how corrupted Republican Politics has become.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 9:42 AM
Comment #347589

Then, WHY, Stephen has Harry “Table everything the house sends” Reid, done what he has done. Is that an example of Democrat compromise, To table everything the Republican led house sends up. If that’s YOUR PEOPLE’s sence of compromise I’m glad I’m an independent conservative.

Posted by: KAP at July 1, 2012 12:39 PM
Comment #347596

KAP-
You seem to pass on an awful lot of talking points without critical examination for an “independent” conservative.

For example, your assumption about Democrats obstructing the Republicans.

The thing you have to keep in mind is, Democrats have the majority in the chamber of Congress that Republicans are failing to get things through. This isn’t a minority sabotaging a majority’s ability to legislate in spite of the fact that the voters voted in a clear majority to get things done.

This isn’t the abuse of a procedure in the Senate rules in order to create a minority veto on the majority. This is the Senate Majority exercising its prerogative not to let offensives legislation through.

The Framers intended the different branches and chambers of government to work at cross purposes, with the majority rules provisions providing the threshold of legitimacy. Republicans want Democrats to Rubber stamp their policies, especially after about four years worth of record breaking obstruction of their agenda.

Isn’t that asking a bit much? The trouble is, you don’t want to have to compromise, you don’t want to have to get your hands dirty denying yourselves your ideals. You think you are entitled to get what you want no matter what, even when you don’t have a majority of any kind behind you.

The rest of us are entitled to have our interests considered, too. And if neither of us has a clear majority, then unfortunately, we’ll have to compromise our dear ideals, or find a way to look at things where boths sides can agree what’s best.

That, actually, wouldn’t be too bad in my opinion. I don’t mind breaking up some of the rigidity of thought, or perhaps forcing people to go back and look at things beyond the limited wisdom of politics, and the sources politicians use to bolster their ideas.

You can be as endlessly negative as you want, but at the end of the day, this is a government you have to share with the rest of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 1:46 PM
Comment #347597

Stephen, Remember all of what you say when YOUR PEOPLE are the minority. It will be interresting to read your comments then.

Posted by: KAP at July 1, 2012 2:03 PM
Comment #347599

SD

“In other words, Democrats have a healthy sense of the give and take required to get things done.”

Yeah, like ObamaCare, like Solyndra donations to Obama supporters, like pay raises to his cronies while SS gets the crumbs and does without, and so much more.

Your analysis is faulty and sad thing is that you are aware of it.

The country is going to hell in a hand basket and the Senate cannot bring to the floor for a vote anything the House has passed. Only a token item or something the RHINO’s feel is important, but otherwise just lack of concern for the american people.

You cannot understand basic instruction concerning the items used on WB. I have told you repeatedly to stop using “your people”. They are not my people. So take this stupid reference and stick it where the sun never shines. You are disrespectfull of anything decent

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 1, 2012 3:15 PM
Comment #347601

“Frank-
As I recall it, we started with the Stimulus, while your side started with trying to stop the stimulus and punishing the Senators who crossed the aisle to support us.”

Actually Stephen, the first Stimulus package was:

“The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613, enacted February 13, 2008) was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day.[1] It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008.”
Concerning the ARRA of 2009:

“To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.[citation needed] The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).
The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.”

There was about as much voter support for the ARRA as there was for the Bush stimulus. Did either of them work? No, we are still in the same economic predicament we were in 4 years ago. Real unemployment is still close to 16%, jobs are still not being created, unless you are referring to federal jobs, and GM was a disaster. It should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy court. Thousands of jobs were lost (not union, but dealerships mechanics and salesmen), the loss of dealerships also effected thousands of communities and related jobs. Stimulus money was spent to prop up union pensions, and bail out states and Democrat cities. It never accomplished what Obama promised and it cost more than advertised:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/stimulus-success-report-adds-debate-151849034.html

So, Stephen, you are being disingenuous when you say it was successful, it wasn’t.

“You don’t have any room to talk about jobs, especially when the chamber of Congress you have under your control isn’t doing its job.”

At least 28 jobs bills have been passed by the House and have been tabled by Reid in the Senate. You accuse the Republicans of not doing anything; but tell me, how many Budgets has Reid brought before the Senate in the past 3 ½ years?

“As for your three reasons McCain lost.

1) is true in part,but he didn’t merely lose among Republicans, he got his butt kicked with everybody.
2) The Republican Party self-identifies almost 70% as conservatives. The real problem is that Republicans can’t nominate a flaming wingnut and expect to win, and they know it, so they go for the Mavericks and the Moderates. I mean has it sunk in yet that you’ve chosen a guy to the left of McCain this time? I don’t suppose it has yet.
3) That’s your opinion, and it’s largely built on another imperative: Whatever liberals and Democrats said about Bush, say it about Obama, no matter how poorly it fits.”

I gave you the reasons for McCain’s loss and now you are an expert on Republican voting. Stephen, no wonder people don’t like you.

1.Who do you expect to vote for a Republican, Democrats???
2.McCain would have lost worse than he did if he had not run Palin as VP. So this quashes your idea of “flaming wingnuts”.
3.It has nothing to do with Bush; Obama has made his own bed and he must lay in it.

“Obama has plenty of achievements.”

So he shouldn’t have any trouble running on them, should he? But why is the narrative from the left, “it’s still Bush’s fault”, even after 3 ½ years?

“Pelosi is right about the astroturf. You know what that means, right? It means an organization that says that its grassroots actually gets most of its support and influence from Washington insiders.
Your so-called grassroots organizations are founded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, led by long time Washington insiders like Dick Armey, who was in the Congress for decades.”

Pelosi was not right. As one who is involved in the TP movement, I can tell you there are no politician leaders; it is a grass roots movement. Even the liberal MSM called it a grassroots movement whose time had come and gone. The left were singing the demise of the TP just months after it started. You were wrong about that, just as you are wrong about the billionaires. Now if you really want to talk about Democratic Party organized Astroturf, Let’s talk about the OWS movement; organized by Democrats, Sorro’s billions, and Union dollars. By the way, how is OWS doing for you now? The TP is effecting elections, what is the OWS doing besides defecating and urinating in public parks?

“As for Suffering for Obama? Holy **** is that delusional.”

No it’s not Stephen; you want to suffer for Obama. I can see by your comments.

“For one thing, Conservatives are constantly enraged nowadays.”

What facts do you base this on, or is it simply your opinion?

“They don’t seem to have a normal, calm emotional response to policy changes they don’t like nowadays, even if they are ideas that were originally theirs. You will chase yourself in circles to avoid being in agreement with Barack Obama, and it’s sad to watch”.

And I notice you will change the subject rather than answer questions asked of you. Example: Bill in Florida asked you questions about voting for liars and you changed the subject, but ignored the question.

“Romney, as the quote reminds us, once was wholeheartedly for the mandate, as were many Republicans. But since this, among other ideas, have been adopted by Democrats, they’ve flip-flopped just so Obama can’t get credit.”

Romney’s HC mandate in MA was a state issue, not a federal government mandate. You are talking apples and oranges.

“They could have agreed with him, and said, we’re glad to see Obama’s come to our side on this now. You could have even had the pleasure of seeing a few liberal’s heads explode. But no, you’ve decided that defeating him is most important, so you can try and make that claim that Obama’s achieved nothing with his great chance.”

It is the American voters who are against Obamacare; if the Republicans had supported Obama’s mandate, they would have suffered the same loses as the Democrats did in 2010. Liberal’s heads are already exploding, why should we care what they do?

“The sorry thing is, that for all your effort, he still managed to achieve the most a Democratic President has in generation.”

You mean Obamacare has made him the most achieved president? Stephen, it is you who live in a fantasy land; Obama’s legacy will be as a 1 term president with majority of American’s calling for the repeal of Obamacare. Being able to pass a massive HC bill, financed by a massive tax increase with the help of a Democrat majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, is not what I would call a great achievement.
You want to know what I would criticize the President for…When it comes down to it, my biggest problem is that change isn’t happening fast enough, and it just seems to me that conservatives are the ones doing the most to ensure that this remains the case.”

Stephen, it is for this reason you are called a socialist. You stand with 20% of the American voters; so don’t be too depressed when the rest of us send Obama packing in November.

“Last, let me blunt on this: it’s the mandate, primarily, that they don’t like- Mitt Romney’s Mandate. But the ACA isn’t just the Mandate, and the other provisions poll much, much better. Guess what we’re going to take this opportunity to tell people about?”

I believe the SC said the Mandate was illegal, but the tax was legal. It is not the mandate that the voters won’t like, it is the tax. The left is all over the news trying to say the SC was wrong, and it’s a penalty and not a tax. Have fun on that one. I expect Romney and the Republicans to nail Obama and the Democrats with the largest tax increase in history; and I expect you and the left to cry foul. I just wonder how many Democrat House and Senate members, up for re-election, who are wishing it had not been called a tax by the court. Or if it had been called a tax, would they have voted for it?

Posted by: Frank at July 1, 2012 3:48 PM
Comment #347614

Fashion handbags are now a common style accessory as most girls adore to hold bags of matching coloring and design and design with their dress. There are numerous sorts of style handbags using the industry that may complement your clothing perfectly. Now you can locate new broad range of style handbags that could possibly be customized by making utilization of personal logos. These bags could possibly be employed as bridal shock when you can place a bride’s preliminary or wedding celebration day inside the monogram.





Overweight is a capital affair a part of abounding individuals in today’s world. Almost two-thirds of US citizenry is overweight.Weight Loss Supplementsis acquired mainly due to ailing activity appearance like smoking, drinking, befitting backward hours, and bistro junk, ailing food. It is important to abate weight as balance physique weight leads to affection disease, diabetes, uterine fibroids, and cancers of the colon, kidney, prostrate, changeable infertility and gallstones.

Posted by: Beautiful Fashion Handbags at July 1, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #347620

KAP-
If we end up in the minority again, then we just do what we did in 2004: we fight our way back up. What you fail to get is that I’ve been in this position before, and learned to live with it. I’ve learned it isn’t the end of the world.

You? It scares you worse than anything.

I’ll do what I have to do, when I have to do it. If you want an idea of how my comments and everything looked, just take a look at the articles in the archives.

Tom Humes-
Well, to get Obamacare through, we had to make deals with our most conservative Senators so they wouldn’t side against us on the filibuster. We might have welcomed Republicans support, but we couldn’t get one of them to actually make a deal with them, even after months of negotiation.

As far as “your people?” I will lump together those who cannot be bothered to distinguish themselves by actual policy differences. I use to just call the Republicans, but apparently people who are willing to back the GOP’s play on nearly every policy get offended when you actually suggest you’re with them.

As for where this country is going, why do I get nothing but paranoid schizophrenic pessimism from the Right these days? If we had Republicans who remembered anymore what morning in America meant, that perhaps people want a greater vision of policy than “destroy Obama”, we might be in better shape.

Frank-
Oh, you give me so much material to work with, I can only thank you. First Stimulus was Keynesian. In fact any tax policy that tries to stimulate the economy by pushing revenues in a deficit environment qualifies.

Both were meant to stabilize the economy. One was followed by a disastrous failure of the economy, while the other was followed by the breaking of the recession, and the return of jobs. Jobs which you discount if they belong to union or Government employees.

That’s the thing, isn’t it? Our policies are a success. Other than concede, your only choice is to lie your ass off.

I’ll leave it at that for tonight. Most of your arguments are baseless anyways. You just simply repeat what you believe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 12:32 AM
Comment #347639

Yea Stephen, and you’ll kick and complain just like you did before just like we are doing. So Stephen you are no different except for the fact you won’t complain that you are being lied to each day by the person you love like a god. I have looked Stephen, in the archives and your comments are no different then us conservatives comments are when YOUR PEOPLE are the minority.

Posted by: KAP at July 2, 2012 8:44 AM
Comment #347640

Frank-
Revisionist history, my friend. Orwellian in the twisted nature of it. You accuse me of twisting the facts, but the facts are that Democrats basically copied this Federal law off of Romney’s mandate, and there’s documented evidence tracing this idea back to the Heritage foundation.

And not just as anything, but as a TAX. So, you go ahead and nail us, we’ll nail you right back, and accuse you of hypocrisy and dishonesty in turn.

You like to think that you’re clever, don’t you? That all these little rhetorical tricks can blind people. That, or you’re so consumed by the politics, that you can’t even analyze the logic of what you’re saying on its own merits. Either way, you’re wrong! A mandate by tax code is a mandate by tax code, and if the only difference is who’s supporting it, then it’s quite plain that the main reason it’s not considered conservative is that a conservative wouldn’t get credit for the policy.

If this was Romney touting his new policy as President, you’d be kissing his butt, raving about how great an idea the mandate is. But as with the stimulus, the only thing that seems to matter is whether a politician you hate will get the credit. Yes, Bush pushed a stimulus in 2008, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Given job numbers that followed, job numbers that did not improve, but got historically worse, that stimulus was a failure.

But since this is a Republican we’re talking about, we won’t say that.

By the time Obama’s stimulus was finished, job growth was back, and the economy was growing again.

But since this is Obama and the Democrats we’re talking about, we won’t give credit where credit is due, because that would hurt the GOP.

By the way, the Supreme court did not say the mandate was illegal. If we take Robert’s argument at face value, he’s saying the mandate is a tax, and Congress has broad taxing powers, so the mandate is legal, just not supported by the provision of the constitution that Obama says it is. Funny how you take the words of a decidedly conservative judge, appointed by the last President, who’s developed a tendency towards conservsative judicial activism, and magically they suit an argument you want to make. Funny how that works.

I think he’s wrong about it, but that is the Supreme Court which handed down the decision, so unlike Republicans who don’t respect constitutional authority, I will accept that the ruling is currently the law of the land, and hope that a future court rules otherwise.

Ultimately, I think your side can’t win, even if it does. Once we’re vanquished, it’s the same stupid emphasis on purity, once more, and I bet the same stupid emphasis on checking off ideological agenda items, rather than taking care of what you promised to. I guarantee we put Romney in charge, with a Republican Congress, and your side will find some way to drop kick us into another recession or worse. That’s what your people do, because your policies ignore the needs of most people, which unfortunately, even in a capitalist system, leads to economic doldrums.

You’ve forced Obama’s policy to be significantly more conservative than it would have been if the Senate had been allowed to do its job. You’ve gotten the chance to kill federal, state, and local jobs, and I can’t seem to find any sources that say that this has brought positive results. We’re down over 600,000 in government employees, with tens of thousands to come, likely, if the sequesters continue on their course- sequesters you insisted on as a party, and which would have never been there otherwise.

How much faster would we be growing, if we didn’t have those people on unemployment? Are we really so stupid as to thinking that we cans save the employment village by destroying it? Kill enough jobs, and we can save the rest? We can begin recovery, once the patient has been allowed to get as sick as possible, so as to make the recovery more dramatic?

It all seems to be a bunch of voodoo, a bunch of pretexts for doing the kinds of things that make rich donors happier. Unfortunately, it’s gotten digested into conventional wisdom for your party, so there’s no telling you what should be obvious as the nose on your face. I’m not a socialist, I’m capitalist, and a realist about capitalism. About systems in general. I don’t believe any system works without some kind of accountability to make sure that people are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, what’s a net positive for society as a whole. You naively believe that if we just let these people alone, that the bad guys won’t succeed, and if they do, their success won’t tempt others to sin as they are doing against society as a whole.

The reality is, while people need the freedom to make mistakes and to search out new ways of doing things, our system also needs the deliberate sort of policing system that society as a whole has. You don’t trust basic society to run by simple dint of social peer-pressure. Why trust the markets, which have that society as their substrate, to do the same?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 8:50 AM
Comment #347642

I have diabeties, hypertension and asthma. I tried to get insurance four years ago but I was informed that will not cover me. Now that the law has been finally deemed constitutional I see that it is too high even if I could afford it. I did however find a couple of policies that are affordable but with large trade offs. I am a retired military veteran and when I wnet in they said that if you do twenty years in the military you will get free health care for youand your family. That was taken from me. Now the Republicans think I am going to stand by and let them do this to me again. I am going to campaign for the President as often as I can.

Posted by: Earl Newton at July 2, 2012 11:50 AM
Comment #347643

SD

Such foolish talk. Your are lock-step with everything liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist and everything left-of-right.

“Our policies are a success.”

A success to ruin the country, ya.

“your only choice is to lie your ass off.”

Fits you like a glove.

“Most of your arguments are baseless anyways”

How arrogant that SD and his penmanship is the sole source of argument that has any merit. If your thoughts and ideas that are put on paper have any merit it is that roadapples, elephant manure and cow dung mixed is what you would call leftist stew.

“Well, to get Obamacare through, we had to make deals with our most conservative Senators so they wouldn’t side against us on the filibuster. We might have welcomed Republicans support, but we couldn’t get one of them to actually make a deal with them, even after months of negotiation.”

So you had to make deals with our most conservative Senators (which is a lie), because you could not get one to sign on with your socialist scheme. That is what you said. If that is not idiotic. They did but they couldn’t.

“As far as “your people?” I will lump together those who cannot be bothered to distinguish themselves by actual policy differences. I use to just call the Republicans, but apparently people who are willing to back the GOP’s play on nearly every policy get offended when you actually suggest you’re with them.”

That does not describe me. I have told you that many times over and you still want to think you are smart enough to know more about me than I do. That is another place where you have no credibility. You don’t know more about me, period. My thoughts are not protrayed here where I am part of “your people”. I AM DIFFERENT!! Get that thru your thick head. Maybe I am expecting too much from you and your 140. Wisdom sure is not a forte of yours.

Maranatha


Posted by: tom humes at July 2, 2012 12:04 PM
Comment #347644

Aw Stephen, come on now, it’s not that hard to be honest and answer actual questions. There’s no need to dodge here.

I didn’t ask about “Romney Care,” I asked if a Republican won a national election because they ran on a health care mandate. You do understand that liberal Republicans aren’t really representative of Republicans as a whole, don’t you?
Lower taxes are part of why rank and file Republicans consider themselves Republicans. Respecting our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights are part of why rank and file Republicans consider themselves to be Republicans. Another government feel-good mandate is NOT why Republicans consider themselves to be Republicans.
The simple fact is that this feel-good mandate, while tossed around by some “Republican” reps and think tanks, has not been embraced by Republican voters, so declaring Republicans as hypocrites for not accepting it under a liberal Democrat is dishonest.
Thats not twisting anything my friend.

Sorry, but I faced the “ugly reality” of the ACA being forced onto the people way before this decision. The “promised shoot-down” of it was nothing but fear mongering by “your people” and trying to label the constant barrage of ‘life without Obamacare’ as myth is nothing but blind partisanship.

As I’ve said before, I don’t watch FOX News so I have no idea if it’s as conservative as leftists claim. But even it is, it is just one CABLE station, not one of the major ones that is seen in EVERY home.
I find it quite funny that you guys get your panties all in a bunch because the is one CABLE channel dares not push your agenda.

People on the right believe government controlled by the people, not people controlled by the government. So every time government gains more power over the individual, you are going to hear things like “occupied nation.” To expect a drone compliance leftist type of thing is to live in a box.

An ever growing government that infringes on the individuals is hardly dull or ordinary for Americans.
I find it amusing in how you rail against people for not wanting the change YOU want. Do you really think that passing liberal legislation by the slimmest of margins, in a totally partisan manner, is the best way to go? Sorry, but it is not, and forcing it upon the people because YOU think it is best for them and that they will eventually shut up and accept it, is going to be met with resistance.

Yes, people want jobs back and the next election will show if people want government dictating business and government being the creator of those jobs OR if they still believe in a free market and the right to run their business as they see best.

A continually growing government is not what defines a functional government in a free society. Raising the so-called debt ceiling in order to accomadate an ever growing government is what’s dysfunctional.

“They want some kind of reform, even if you’ve soured them on a general notion of Obama’s healthcare plan. That, by a margin of 77%!”

I don’t know one person who doesn’t want reform, but most don’t desire government mandate to be the answer. Americans enjoy living their lives how they themselves see best, unfortunately it is “your people” who have taken away any sense of self responsibility from doing so.

You don’t need an iron fist in order to live free Stephen. You only need an iron fist to force people to comply with things that infringe on their individual rights.

“But this democratic republic was never, and will never be designed so you don’t have to follow laws you don’t like.”

Very true. But the Constitutional Republic that this once was, protected the rights of the individual over the desires of those who think they know what’s best for all.
The effectiveness and beauty of the Constitution is in its simplicity, not its re-interpretation.

Posted by: kctim at July 2, 2012 12:13 PM
Comment #347647

tom humes-
A lie? Unlike the Republicans, who have maybe 8% liberals and about a quarter moderates, Democrats have large Conservative and moderate factions within their ranks. We’re not merely self-described liberals, but in fact are mostly conservatives and moderates.

Of course, your labelling would probably differ. That’s the beautiful part. You can claim everybody but the base are leftist, marxist liberals, but when the time comes to talk about Democrats, you allege they’re just liberals, and say only twenty percent of the country is liberal.

The population seems to go up or down depending on what you want to claim.

I am not lying when I said we had to make deals with our most conservative Senators, or that we tried to make deals with Republicans. That’s documentable truth. Look up “Gang of Six”. The Republicans on that negotiation were Enzi, Grassley, and Snowe. The situation with conservative Democratic Party Senators was also of some concern.

As for what you call different?

I never see folks like you actually distinguishing themselves on the policy. I don’t really allow much daylight between myself and my fellow Democrats on matters, but at the same, I don’t ask people to believe that I am anything but a Moderate Liberal Democrat I don’t really expect people to believe that I am not a loyal Obama supporter.

I don’t see the point of acknowledging claimed differences of opinion that don’t turn into real differences of opinion. Stop dittoheading issues, and I might take your claims of being different seriously.

kctim-
One liberal to moderate republican is representative of Republicans as a whole now, though. That’s what Republicans bought for themselves by nominating Romney. They may not have bought into the mandate, but he bought into the mandate, and if he and his friends dare to point fingers at Obama for raising a tax, guess what? The fingers are going to point right back, and most definitely, not without reason.

As far as the “promised shootdown” goes? There were plenty of Republicans predicting its demise, making plans for what to do after that.

I’m sick of all the constitution in exile rhetoric. The real exile has become policy from the real world. Your people are insisting on policies that don’t work, often for no better reason than it doesn’t follow your dogmas.

The effectiveness of the constitution is that it acknowledges that people are going to have different views of how to govern, now to interpret law, what should become law. That is enshrined in our political freedoms, in the freedom of speech, and in the checks and balances of government. It’s neither a libertarian nor a totalitarian document. It’s something in-between, a sidestep from the usual dichotomy of weak but ineffectual government versus strong but tyrannical. It gives us rule of the people without rule of the mob, the ability to change our government, but with less of the ability to mutate into something that is no longer a Democracy.

The Constitution gave us a government that is both adaptable to people’s needs an wants, and stable, constrained from exercising too much power where it’s not supposed to be.

You don’t acknowledge that balance, or that it can work against you, and still be just in doing so. You just have this limited view of it from one side, filtered through the lens of partisanship.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 1:18 PM
Comment #347648

Good God, I love the internet age.

I love the part where Romney talks about withholding tax refunds or drivers licenses for those who don’t comply. Such a small government conservative.

He’s your candidate now. Seems no matter who wins this November, he’ll be too liberal for the conservatives who frequent this site. X-D

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #347653

Stephen, seriously?
Romney had to run on repealing the ACA and is continuing to run on it. That is what Republicans bought into. If Republicans don’t like that he implemented the mandate in a liberal state, they won’t vote for him. Who knows. The anti 2nd Amendment stuff Obama ran on in Illinois as a senator didn’t come back to haunt him, so maybe this won’t be as big a deal as you all hope it will be. Time will tell.

Of course some Republicans had convinced themselves the ACA would be shot down, it would have been best for the country so they were hoping for that to happen.

“I’m sick of all the constitution in exile rhetoric. The real exile has become policy from the real world. Your people are insisting on policies that don’t work, often for no better reason than it doesn’t follow your dogmas.”

Actually, people are insisting on policies that you don’t like. You don’t like the end result so you don’t like how they work.
Fact is, there are limits on policy and there is a way to change those limits that should be respected. Your people don’t like those limits when it affects your policy and you don’t have the support to change those limits how they were meant to be changed, so you cloud and by-pass those limits and that pisses people off.

“The Constitution gave us a government that is both adaptable to people’s needs an wants, and stable, constrained from exercising too much power where it’s not supposed to be.”

I proudly acknowledge that balance Stephen. The problem for your people is that the “people’s needs and wants” should apply to ALL. No matter how much you want it to be true, the needs and desires of one individual do NOT trump the rights of another.

It is interesting though, how you can believe the needs and desires of one person wanting material things provided to them is valid, but the need and desire to be free is not.

Freedom for ALL isn’t partisan my friend, it is American.

Posted by: kctim at July 2, 2012 2:39 PM
Comment #347658

kctim-
No, nobody acts like Obama’s going to take away their guns.

While I’m recovering from my uncontrollable fits of laughter, can you explain to me why Romney has any business criticizing Obama for a plan that he’s only really flip-flopped on since starting to run for the Republican nomination for President?

I’ve got him on the record twice, once in 2006 describing his plan to the Heritage Foundation in plain terms as one that levies a tax penalty, and another where he defends the idea in 2010, effectively saying the same thing. The overall policy isn’t much different: increases in aid for the poor, subsidies for the Middle Class, penalties for those can afford it, but don’t get it.

What’s the distinction, beyond the fact that it’s Massachusetts? Did it fail, in your estimation? If it failed, why isn’t that allowed to negatively reflect on the former governor?

This isn’t about partisanship, except as it seems to allow Republicans and conservatives to be two-faced about their positions, as in this case. Why is what’s good for goose not good for the gander? Why are we supposed to suddenly buy that Mitt Romney’s a severe conservative, and there’s no problem with this in the ranks after the last few months of “anybody but Mitt” primaries?

I proudly acknowledge that balance Stephen. The problem for your people is that the “people’s needs and wants” should apply to ALL. No matter how much you want it to be true, the needs and desires of one individual do NOT trump the rights of another.

You’re putting words in my mouth. Let me put a few in mine instead, words that will better fit my actual ideas: Beyond constitutional limits on Congress’ power to legislate, I don’t want Congress to be pushing policy that only benefits a few individuals, or which is only favored by a few. The system was designed to work around consensus, and I want that to be the driver of policy, whichever political direction it goes.

I believe that the consensus of the American people should be what drives the size and integration of government into our lives. If people want more government, let them have it. If they find they don’t like it, they can choose to shrink it. Quit trying to jam the pendulum in one position. Let it swing as it may. If you fear where it may go, then go out their and give people better reasons to let it swing back your way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 3:54 PM
Comment #347661

Phx8, you’ll have to explain this one to me. You say that Obama can say it isn’t a tax, right? Good, then the law is, as determined, unconstitutional. Surely he wouldn’t be continuing to implement an unconstitutional law, right? The only way it can be considered unconstitutional (though through the most idiodic of logic that exists) is if it is a tax. So, the facts are clear.

If it is a tax, the law stands.

If it is not a tax, the law is unconstitutional.

Now, tell me, which is it?

BTW, since there are no ‘penalties’ for not paying the tax, I will not be paying it. I’m curious how long that will last without me going to jail, like Wesley Snipes did?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2012 4:55 PM
Comment #347663
I believe that the consensus of the American people should be what drives the size and integration of government into our lives. If people want more government, let them have it. If they find they don’t like it, they can choose to shrink it. Quit trying to jam the pendulum in one position. Let it swing as it may. If you fear where it may go, then go out their and give people better reasons to let it swing back your way.

Ah, so you are not for limiting the reaches of government except by the majority of the populace, right? Straight Democracy (which isn’t how our current country is set up)?

So, you are either going to have to change the constitution to be that government or accept that that isn’t the type of government you have.

I’m just glad that the minorities that you are wanting to squash have already gotten a lot of their freedoms defended before this change, hopefully they will be able to retain them after the fact. Like black people being able to vote, homosexuals being able to say they are homosexual without going to jail, etc… That’s what your ‘pendulum swinging’ looks like, you realize…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #347664
Now it’s just a disagreement on what to legislate.

Yep, there are no limits anymore, the appearance of that was just put to rest. We now no longer have the country that protects the minority from the will of the majority as our founders created, we have a new fully fledged democracy that doesn’t care about the rights of the minority, individual rights or allowing people to live their own lives as they wish without interference from others.

Just don’t get upset when that comes back to bite you on the ass, Stephen…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2012 5:03 PM
Comment #347666
As a citizen of this country, though, under its constitution, the bargain I have to strike for being on the right side of the Affordable Care Act decision is that I’m bound to accept the result I didn’t like as binding.

Like Citizens United?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2012 5:24 PM
Comment #347672

Rhinehold-
I seem to live in an age where that wierd hallucinogenic gas from Batman Begins has been dispersed in the air. Bluntly, from my perspective, I don’t kmow what bloody totalitarian leftist paradise you’re looking at. What me and a lot of Democrats see is 4 out of 5 bills killed by filibuster in the good days, and a Congress that is beating the Do-Nothing Congress Truman ran again like a rented mule in the competition to be the laziest Congress of modern times.

What you have here is a media that feeds back false perceptions to people from a partisan source to the point where people who take current events awareness tests after watching Fox News score worse than people who didn’t watch or read anything.

Advocating for Democracy and for people to have a choice, is by definition preparing for oneself to be bitten in the ass one day. But I’d say that’s also true of depending on counter-democratic methods to try and prevent change in policy to reflect people’s attitudes.

What you ought to realize is, that depriving people of the means of self-government, is not depriving them of the desire, the demand for self-government. So when you deprive people of the chance to change policy, you’re only waiting for that one event to crystallize that super saturated demand, like a single grain crystal solidifying a whole container’s worth of a mineral.

You think, oh, if I throw enough obstacles in front of them, they’ll get tired and go home. And maybe that happens. But then the critical event occurs, and the system flips, and those people come out to oppose and support what you wanted kept down.

Look at 2008. You think that was just a response of the moment? It’s not. It was a long time coming, with the Financial crisis just crystallizing what people had long thought.

What happened in 2010, I believe was a backlash, crystallized by a relentless media campaign. But I don’t believe there is as much demand for what the Tea Party is truly selling as they think, and the chemistry has likely gone sour on them. Meanhwhile the OWS movement, whatever’s happened to the original protests, has once again crystallized a focus on jobs and economic improvement. Folks polled say they want healthcare reform by an over three quarters proportion.

The systems our nation depend upon have become dysfunctional, and I don’t really think people are in love with the systems you’re in love with anymore.

As for decisions being binding even when I don’t like them? Sure, Citizens United falls into that category. I think the decisions about the most naive thing in the world, both in the idea that a corporation can be treated just like a person, and in the idea that money can be treated just like free speech without corruption following. When money talks, bull**** walks.

Hopefully, we can get justices in the court who sympathize, and then the decision will be reconsidered with different results. But that, of course, will depend upon who gets elected. Welcome to American Democracy. If you wanted certainty and processes that never bite you on the ass, you came to the wrong country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #347681
ngress that is beating the Do-Nothing Congress Truman ran again like a rented mule in the competition to be the laziest Congress of modern times.

BS, the number of new regulations and laws that THIS CONGRESS has passed is larger than any congress previously. That they haven’t done what YOU want them to do is not the same thing as doing nothing.

What you have here is a media that feeds back false perceptions to people from a partisan source to the point where people who take current events awareness tests after watching Fox News score worse than people who didn’t watch or read anything.

Include MSNBC and CNN (and every other ‘news’ outlet) and I would agree with your statement. Otherwise, you are just a partisan hack.

Advocating for Democracy and for people to have a choice, is by definition preparing for oneself to be bitten in the ass one day. But I’d say that’s also true of depending on counter-democratic methods to try and prevent change in policy to reflect people’s attitudes.

Following the limits of the federal government as instated by our Founding Fathers is not ‘counter-democratic’. Blocking laws that the majority want that limit the rights of the individual is what made this country great. When we lost that understanding is when this country really started becoming the totalitarian state that it is.

What you ought to realize is, that depriving people of the means of self-government, is not depriving them of the desire, the demand for self-government.

“self-government”… Interesting statement, but what do you think that really means? That means the ability for people to tell others how to live their lives. If there are no limits on ‘self-government’, then all people are at the will of the majority. Laws against being gay, laws against not being Christian, laws against being a woman, etc. All of these are just tips of the iceberg in such a society. “Self-government” does not mean making a law to tell MYSELF what to do, but what someone ELSE must or mustn’t do. if it was just about how to live your own life, a law wouldn’t be needed, would it?

You think, oh, if I throw enough obstacles in front of them, they’ll get tired and go home.

LOL, no, I know much better than that. The will of those who want to rule others will never cease, as history will tell us. There is an endgame that people want, both left and right, and both sides are marching towards that end goal. Both sides end goals are totalitarian in nature.

As I was discussing the other night, the argument isn’t that we shouldn’t be telling others how to live their lives, but it is about WHO should be telling others how to live their lives. Whether it is our guy or theirs. The concept of letting people live their own lives has been pushed out of the way. This was not done overnight, but little by little. This ruling is just another (perhaps final) nail in that coffin.

It’s no longer a question of if we will be slaves or not, but who will be holding our chains…

What happened in 2010, I believe was a backlash, crystallized by a relentless media campaign. But I don’t believe there is as much demand for what the Tea Party is truly selling as they think, and the chemistry has likely gone sour on them. Meanhwhile the OWS movement, whatever’s happened to the original protests, has once again crystallized a focus on jobs and economic improvement. Folks polled say they want healthcare reform by an over three quarters proportion.

This view is one of rose colored glasses to your side, the same view that you accuse your opponents of having. Just look at the last line “3/4 of the people polled say that they want healthcare reform”. And then look at the other part of that argument “3/4 of the people polled do NOT want came out of congress in 2010”. Yes, they want healthcare reform, but not the kind that was given. You shield your eyes to anything that speaks against your political view and latch hard on to anything that bolsters it. You would make a good Republican Rush follower…

The systems our nation depend upon have become dysfunctional, and I don’t really think people are in love with the systems you’re in love with anymore.

Yep, ever since we drove off of the rails of freedom and liberty, our nation became ever increasingly dysfunctional. And of course no one wants the ‘systems’ of liberty and freedom anymore, they have POWER over their fellow citizens now. They want to wield that power, not give it up. It’s a predictable result, one that your side, and the other, saw coming decades ago and pushed us towards so they could be the ones controlling that power…

I think the decisions about the most naive thing in the world, both in the idea that a corporation can be treated just like a person, and in the idea that money can be treated just like free speech without corruption following. When money talks, bull**** walks.

LOL, you still hold on to the fairy tale that Citizens United was about treating a corporation like a person, not the fact that the ruling was very clear that it was about groups of individuals not losing their right to free speech simply because they did so in the form of a corporation? I’m not sure why you think it is ‘naïve’ to defend the NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club and other corporations who wanted to express the speech of those members who pooled their money together, but hey, that’s your opinion I guess.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #347695

Stephen Daugherty, in regards to your comments in Comment #347640; your whole argument is based on everything the Obama pundits have been saying in the MSM this weekend. You are not the first to blame conservatives or Republicans for misrepresenting the facts to the masses of America. This is simply a trick of the left to shift the blame. The real question is, will the American people believe Obama when he says his HC program is not financed by taxes. You will have a hard time convincing the voters it is not a tax; when Obama’s people argued before the SC that it was a tax, and then the SC determined the only way the mandate is legal is under the tax.

“If this was Romney touting his new policy as President, you’d be kissing his butt, raving about how great an idea the mandate is.”

I don’t think so Stephen; you seem to be the one with your head stuck up Obama’s ass.

“By the way, the Supreme court did not say the mandate was illegal.”

Stephen, stop playing the semantics game; you know perfectly well that the Mandate was determined illegal under the Commerce Clause and funded by a penalty. Your comments are wasting my time, either you want to talk intelligently or you want to be a shrill liberal hack; which is it?

“If we take Robert’s argument at face value, he’s saying the mandate is a tax, and Congress has broad taxing powers, so the mandate is legal, just not supported by the provision of the constitution that Obama says it is.”

So you are admitting Obama lied when he presented Obamacare to the American people? And that the Democrats lied to the American people when they presented it before congress? You just admitted that Obama is a fraud when it comes to being a Constitutional Scholar.

“Ultimately, I think your side can’t win, even if it does. Once we’re vanquished, it’s the same stupid emphasis on purity, once more, and I bet the same stupid emphasis on checking off ideological agenda items, rather than taking care of what you promised to. I guarantee we put Romney in charge, with a Republican Congress, and your side will find some way to drop kick us into another recession or worse.”

Stephen, you jump from one talking point to another, but if that is what you want; if you want to talk about the economy and what your side has done compared to what you think our side would do… then why don’t you look at the economy and tell us how great it is.

We are already entering into another recession. We are losing industry. Our real unemployment is 16-17%. Our national debt is unsustainable, real wealth of ALL Americans has fallen, taxes will be affecting the middle and lower class when the Bush tax cuts expire, real inflation is rising, and our power grad is failing because Obama has made fossil fuels the enemy, with more coal fired power plants being forced to close because of EPA rules. Stephen, good luck trying to convince the American people that everything is great.

“You’ve forced Obama’s policy to be significantly more conservative than it would have been if the Senate had been allowed to do its job. You’ve gotten the chance to kill federal, state, and local jobs, and I can’t seem to find any sources that say that this has brought positive results. We’re down over 600,000 in government employees, with tens of thousands to come, likely, if the sequesters continue on their course- sequesters you insisted on as a party, and which would have never been there otherwise”

Stephen, listen to me, Obama had the presidency and controlled the complete Congress for the first 2 years of his presidency; but he chose to make Obamacare the prime issue of those 2 years. Obama forced his own Congress to be more conservative (in reality not more conservative but less liberal); his policies forced the American people to put a stop to his radicalism by going to the polls in 2010. Are you so ignorant as to not understand what happened in 2010? Your side lost seats in the House and Senate and State governments.

Regarding government jobs; state and local jobs were lost because state and local governments ran out of money. Obama has done his best t prop up the state and local governments with the taxpayer’s dollars, but eventually the end comes. Regarding Federal jobs; why should the taxpayer continue to support a bloated system when companies are forced to cut back to stay in business. Are you honestly telling me there are no places where the government can cut costs? Federal workers (especially duplicate jobs) are dead weight on the taxpayer.

Tell me Stephen (you who are worried about federal workers losing their jobs); how many jobs do you suppose will be lost in the DOD massive cuts? How many military personnel will be forced out of the military, how many bases will be closed, and how many thousands of civilian workers will lose their jobs? When you give e answer about the loss of DOD jobs, I will answer your next comment:

“How much faster would we be growing, if we didn’t have those people on unemployment? Are we really so stupid as to thinking that we cans save the employment village by destroying it? Kill enough jobs, and we can save the rest? We can begin recovery, once the patient has been allowed to get as sick as possible, so as to make the recovery more dramatic?”

Honestly Stephen, your writing and comments don’t really make much sense. I am not trying to be critical, but you seem to jump all over the place. You answer a subject by creating a dozen new subjects. Trying to discuss a topic with you is like talking to a child.

The result of Obamacare is going to be bad: the American people are going to be furious that Obama lied and deceived them. This will cause conservatives and independents to rally around a vote Obama out. The Democrat Congressional seats will be in danger and I believe we will see Democrats bail on Obamacare if it is brought before the House, as is planned. Reid will not allow it to come to the Senate and this will infuriate the American voters even more. You will continue to spout the talking points of the left; but that’s politics.

I heard Obama speak after the SC ruled Obamacare to be legal, as funded by taxes, and he began the liberal, “can’t we all just work together” crap. He should have thought of that when he rammed Obamacare through of a party line vote.

Posted by: Frank at July 2, 2012 10:39 PM
Comment #347729

Stephen

How about an explanation instead of childish fits of laughter?
Presidential candidate Obama’s views on our 2nd Amendment rights were different than they were before. He knew his position would be a thorn in his quest to become President, so he altered it in an effort to appeal to more people. Romney is doing almost the same thing.
Good for one but not the other? That kind of hypocrisy is not really surprising.

“can you explain to me why Romney has any business criticizing Obama for a plan that he’s only really flip-flopped on since starting to run for the Republican nomination for President?”

Sure. He is dealing with all Americans now, not just big government Mass. voters. Again, Obama has done it with the 2nd Amendment, illegal aliens and gay marriage in order to get votes, so why such a fuss over Romney?

This silliness ranks right up there with complaining about Romneys millions while ignoring Obamas millions AND ignoring the fact that you guys ran millionaire Kerry not too long ago.

What’s good for goose not good for the gander? The hypocrisy is astounding.

“Beyond constitutional limits on Congress’ power to legislate, I don’t want Congress to be pushing policy that only benefits a few individuals, or which is only favored by a few.”

But yet that is exactly what has happened with the travesty known as the ACA. 80% were satisfied with their current health care insurance and favored only by a few liberals/progressives who love government mandates.

“I believe that the consensus of the American people should be what drives the size and integration of government into our lives.”

A 51-49 “consensus” may be good enough for you Stephen, but not for me. ALL policy that takes away or infringes on individual rights and freedoms should have to respect the Constitutional procedure to do so. You get your majority required by the Constitution and people like me wouldn’t have such a valid argument.

“If you fear where it may go, then go out their and give people better reasons to let it swing back your way.”

I’m doing my best, but the buying votes with promised freebies is a very difficult opponent.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2012 12:00 PM
Comment #347746

Rhinehold-
I’m afraid you haven’t been keeping up with the statistics for laws actually passed. It’s not even a matter of whether I like those laws or not, they’re defeating their own Congresses in regards to passing fewer laws.

Really, You’re not going to get anywhere just contradicting me, this isn’t Argument Clinic.

Now you can call me a partisan hack for talking about the failure of Fox Viewers to keep up properly, but that’s actually documented. And before you try, not debunked.

The low standards of conservative media for both information and speculation makes it easy for things to go off on a tangent, which is not to say that Republicans, whether we’re talking rank and file, or the politicians in Washington are any worse than a Democrat or liberal stuck in a similar situation. The thing of it is, Democrats are not so deeply stuck in their own little nest of liberal outlets. (and no, they don’t count the MSM as particularly liberal)

Because of that, they are forced to confront issues and truths that propagandists in the Party might have them ignore, or which the powerful might sweep under the table.

Your attitude towards other networks is a symptom of this kind of problem. You’ve basically been taught a fundamentally unreliable way of looking at information gathered from outside sources. Problem is, all you’re going to get is your own point of view fed back to you, and where you’re wrong, you’ll be encouraged to stay wrong.

Now folks like you look at situations where a majority becomes less than Libertarian, less than Conservative, and you say, “we have to nip this in the bud.” You look at it and think that the public is no longer in full possession of its faculties.

You look at any differentiation from your view as a violation of the constitution.

And so, looking through that narrow lens, you think it’s perfectly fine to obstruct, to destroy function in the govenrment that doesn’t follow your views.

The trick of it is, governments have to operate despite the fact that not everybody agrees. That is why Self-government needs simple majority rules standards in most cases. We’ll never get everybody, and as any Democrat or Republican in the Senate can tell you, it’s rare to get sixty senators to agree on anything, one party or the other.

So, 50%+1 is the standard for most legislation.

You misdefine self-government. It’s not merely the ability of one person to govern themselves. You have that even in anarchy. The trick is, how do you get things to where a a free people can govern themselves, rather than having just a few minority interests who have deemed themselves especially qualified to rule do it instead.

This country isn’t a totalitarian state by any stretch of the imagination. That you’ve come to believe this is sad, and a commentary on how narrow your news sources are. They’ve been feeding people this, because in the face of the massive political disasters the Bush Administration represented, most people wouldn’t give them the time of day unless somebody pretended that armageddon is on the way.

But as much as folks can push people into the fever dreams of the Right, that won’t shield them for all that much longer if things get really bad.

As far as corporate free speech goes?

Show me the corporation that has a child, in or out of wedlock. Heck, show me one that gets married to another corporation. Show me a corporation that has to deal with the troubles of Middle School, or endure the effects of a birth defect. To treat the product of a very strained reading of the 14th Amendment as if its rights are exactly like that of the actual indviduals is absurd. The whole idea is that money is free speech, but if that’s the case, does that mean corporations have more right to speech?

There are any number of ways you can twist the law to apply that way. Me, I think the corporations should be limited to the same amount of money you or I have the ability to give under current laws. By that, you get the free speech application to groups, but not the naively un-noted difference in strength and political pull.

Frank-
On the subject of the sophistry you accuse me of?

I don’t think Obama lied if he failed to anticipate, two years ago, how a conservative justice, brought this case which shocked many legal observers, would choose to affirm the constitutionality of his law.

Besides which, You did notice that my sources basically have Romney full-throatedly endorsing the provision as a tax penalty, right? You can call it a trick, you can call it whatever, That doesn’t change the logical chain of inference: if you folks want to call the mandate a tax, fine, but it’s a tax your candidate for President and other Conservatives promoted, and justified in a similar way to President currently in office.

And no, I don’t think Obama ever said something so ridiculous as it not being taxed financed.

As for jumping from one point to another? I’m only following you, responding to you and others point by point. :-)

As for the rest? Yes, more tiresome, unsupportable rhetoric. Recession? First we have to see negative growth. Real unemployment? Funny, But what would you actually do to change that which you weren’t doing before, when the policies led to disaster? Whose fault, exactly, is it that the poor and middle class didn’t get a permanent tax cut, hell, didn’t get a continuation of the making work pay cut? It wasn’t the Democrats that filibustered that.

Real inflation, that is inflation without the natural gyrations of fuel and food involved, isn’t going anywhere fast, and where it’s going someplace, it’s going there according to the policies of the Previous President, and the Republican Congress who helped pass his laws.

As for Coal Fired plants, It’s funny that a Republican who might otherwise be pointing out the gas-fired plants that are being opened up. Your people opposed modernizing that grid, your people opposed keeping the grid under regulated control, which would prevent the kind of undependable behavior that deregulated power companies engage in, “wheeling” power to artificially elevate scarcity of supply, rather than keeping things at an efficient, steady clip.

There’s so much you won’t own up to, but even if you win this political battle, there’s one thing you won’t be able to do: convince people that things are fine as they are. You can confuse people into opposition, but you won’t be able to confuse people into being content. Sooner or later, they’ll figure out who will let things get better.

As for the sequesters? Look, even the defense sequester wouldn’t have been there if the GOP had simply treated the matter as housekeeping. Despite how hysterically you keep on going about it, American Treasury bonds are in no danger of being dumped as an excessive risk, and so our debt is sustainable. There’s a long term fiscal problem that needs to be addressed, but one look at the post-austerity economics of Europe tells us that austerity here won’t be helpful.

Do away with all of that stupid deal, and just focus on creating jobs. And by that, I don’t mean following the agenda which for the last decade has almost killed more jobs than it created, I mean, actually policies to create work, to bolster new industries, and to otherwise help this economy recover on honest terms.

As for working together? Obama negotiated for months with people from the Republican side of the Senate. Your people simply didn’t negotiate in good faith. Neither did you negotiate during the debt ceiling debacle, and ther result is the fiscal cliff people are dreading.

But maybe your people should have thought of the consequencse before you rammed through your legislation.

kctim-
Childish laughter? I think even an adult can laugh at the idea that Obama successfully avoided being pilloried by the gun-rights radicals. Obama can’t even avoid being bashed by your people for not doing any gun control at all. Instead, Wayne LaPierre claimed he was just waiting to lull people into a false sense of security.

That kind of nonsense deserves a good laughing at.

As for Healthcare reform? Yeah, people are so satisfied, 77% want reform.

As for consensus? Point out to me in the constitution, beyond a few provisions, where passing laws requires more than a simple majority. The framers lived through a time where things needed to get done, but the Articles of Confederation required three quarter votes on everything. Note how that went away, in most cases.

We got the majority that the Constitution requires, but strangely enough, folks on the right added the necessity of another ten votes!

As for promised freebies? Give me a break. We were open about how we funded that, where we got the money from. Hell, right now you have people bashing us for the fact that folks are actually going to get taxed somewhat more to pay for it.

How’s that for irony? We do responsible things, like put things on budget that were off, and the folks who didn’t pay for a single bit of new spending with taxes bash us as irresponsible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 4:20 PM
Comment #347748

Stephen is a liberal, and liberals believe whatever they want is good for the country.

1. Liberals believe in global warming; therefore global warming must be forced on everyone.

2. Liberals believe in National Healthcare; therefore NHC must be forced on everyong.

3. Liberals drive green hybrid cars; therefore all people must drive hybrids.

4. Liberals hate fossil fuels; therefore fossil fuels must be taken away from everyone.

5. Liberals believe in gun control; therefore everyone must live under gun control.

This list could go on and on and be applied to everything liberals believe in:

6. Liberals believe Roberts was wrong about calling a penalty a tax; therefore no one has the right to accuse Obama and the Democrats of taxing for ACA.

The ultimate goal of liberals is to impose their will on all American people. That wouldn’t be so bad, except for the fact that liberals only make up 20% of the electorate.

Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #347752

“I don’t think Obama lied if he failed to anticipate, two years ago, how a conservative justice, brought this case which shocked many legal observers, would choose to affirm the constitutionality of his law.” Stephen Daugherty.

Stephen, you are dead wrong; either Obama is completely incompetent or he is lying. Either way, it doesn’t look good for Obama. Obama WH Chief of Staff was questioned by Chris Wallace and Wallace played the audio of the Obama arguing before the SC that it was a tax.

“Democrats told us Obamacare was not a tax.
Then they argued in front of the Supreme Court that it was a tax.
Now they want to tell us again that Obamacare is not a tax.

Jack Lew, the Obama White House Chief of Staff, was trying to persuade Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday that Obamacare was not a tax. But it didn’t work out so well for Lew when Wallace played audio of the Obama lawyer arguing that Obamacare was a tax in front of the Supreme Court.

Lew was stunned after being caught in the lie.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/busted-audio-of-obama-lawyer-arguing-obamacare-is-a-tax-stuns-wh-chief-of-staff-jack-lew-video/

“Besides which, You did notice that my sources basically have Romney full-throatedly endorsing the provision as a tax penalty, right? You can call it a trick, you can call it whatever, That doesn’t change the logical chain of inference: if you folks want to call the mandate a tax, fine, but it’s a tax your candidate for President and other Conservatives promoted, and justified in a similar way to President currently in office.”

Stephen, it doesn’t matter what Romney endorsed. What matters is what Romney promises to do if elected. You are completely out of touch with Obama’s precarious position; this not a referendum to elect Romney, it is a referendum to get rid of Obama. Obama and his policies have him against the ropes. You do not understand how much trouble Obama is in. Let me give you an example:

“Another North Carolina Democrat is refusing to support President Obama’s reelection effort. This time it’s Rep. Larry Kissell…

Kissell is also upset with Obama and Democrats over Obamacare. As McClatchy reports:

Last week, Kissell was one of 17 Democrats who voted with Republicans to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. And next week, he plans to vote with them again to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law.

“I’ve heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the health care law,” Kissell told the Observer Monday. “I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it.”

The news of Kissell’s refusal to back Obama follows up on a similar pronouncement by another North Carolina Democratic congressman, Rep. Mike McIntyre.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/another-nc-dem-refuses-endorse-obama_648076.html

Stephen, I don’t know anything about the district that Kissell represents; it is either Democratic or leaning Democratic. He, a Democrat, was elected in this district. It could be that the district is made up of independents; but it doesn’t matter. He has hundreds of constituents calling and wanting the ACA repealed. The results of the 2010 election were not because of a mandate or a tax; it was because the American people did not want the ACA. You can blame or accuse all you want, but the voters still don’t want the ACA.

“As for jumping from one point to another? I’m only following you, responding to you and others point by point. :-)”

No, you’re not following me; you talk about things I never mentioned. You have a hard problem staying on topic.

“As for the rest? Yes, more tiresome, unsupportable rhetoric. Recession? First we have to see negative growth. Real unemployment? Funny, But what would you actually do to change that which you weren’t doing before, when the policies led to disaster? Whose fault, exactly, is it that the poor and middle class didn’t get a permanent tax cut, hell, didn’t get a continuation of the making work pay cut? It wasn’t the Democrats that filibustered that.”

Again, it doesn’t matter what we would do, although you seem to be deaf to Republican ideas (2o some job bills sent to the Senate and none on the floor); this is about Obama and his record, not Romney’s. I will tell you a secret, if Ron Paul was running against Obama right now, he could win. You want to make this about Bush, you want to make this about Romney, but it’s about Obama.

“Real inflation, that is inflation without the natural gyrations of fuel and food involved, isn’t going anywhere fast, and where it’s going someplace, it’s going there according to the policies of the Previous President, and the Republican Congress who helped pass his laws.”

Yes, and we (conservatives) didn’t like the numbers games by either Republicans or Democrats. Do you honestly think, when a wife goes into the store to buy food, that she is thinking about who played with the numbers to say there is no inflation? Talk numbers, facts, and figures all you want Stephen, but when people go to the grocery store and the price of food has tripled, and when their electric bill has doubled, and when the norm becomes $3.50 a gallon for gas; they are not happy. You live in a fantasy world Stephen.

“As for Coal Fired plants, It’s funny that a Republican who might otherwise be pointing out the gas-fired plants that are being opened up. Your people opposed modernizing that grid, your people opposed keeping the grid under regulated control, which would prevent the kind of undependable behavior that deregulated power companies engage in, “wheeling” power to artificially elevate scarcity of supply, rather than keeping things at an efficient, steady clip.”

Facts Stephen, facts; not supposition and innuendo. You come out with these claims that the Republicans are blocking legislation; either you are completely ignorant of how the process works, or you are ignoring the fact that there are amendments and attachments added to bills. Stop acting stupid.

“As for working together? Obama negotiated for months with people from the Republican side of the Senate. Your people simply didn’t negotiate in good faith. Neither did you negotiate during the debt ceiling debacle, and ther result is the fiscal cliff people are dreading”

Lastly Stephen, this is an outright lie. Provide the facts and not your opinions.

Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2012 5:10 PM
Comment #347755

Stephen

“I think even an adult can laugh at the idea that Obama successfully avoided being pilloried by the gun-rights radicals.”

Of course, but my point is that Obama changed his tune on the issue in order to better his chances of getting elected and that is the exact same thing Romney has done with this mandate.
That is not nonsense and the only thing deserving a good laugh is your intentional avoidance of the point so as not to show your hypocrisy.

“As for Healthcare reform? Yeah, people are so satisfied, 77% want reform.”

How many favor this mandate as reform? How many favor a government mandate of any kind as reform? What percentage of that 77% are willing to pay more for the reform YOU desire?

“As for consensus? Point out to me in the constitution, beyond a few provisions, where passing laws requires more than a simple majority.”

So we are to simply throw away the “few provisions” you don’t like? LOL!


The framers lived through a time where things needed to get done, but the Articles of Confederation required three quarter votes on everything. Note how that went away, in most cases.

We got the majority that the Constitution requires, but strangely enough, folks on the right added the necessity of another ten votes!

As for promised freebies? Give me a break. We were open about how we funded that, where we got the money from. Hell, right now you have people bashing us for the fact that folks are actually going to get taxed somewhat more to pay for it.

How’s that for irony? We do responsible things, like put things on budget that were off, and the folks who didn’t pay for a single bit of new spending with taxes bash us as irresponsible.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment #347758

Frank-
I’m not a doctor, but in these special circumstances, I have a chill pill to prescribe to you.

Man. You guys talk more about what we believe than we do. In fact, you insist on taking much of your time to tell us what we believe. And it all seems to be this evil, destructive stuff that will destroy the country.

How convenient is it that your side is here to oppose everything!

Look, you might want to believe we can stand, economically speaking, to weather every energy crisis from here to the end of the century, but the truth is, we’ll pay a cost in economic activity as the scarcity of our fuel goes up. Having a laissez faire market for it won’t help.

We need to be realistic, that’s all. You’re so concerned about not being told what to do, that you don’t even stop to consider that you might just be rejecting dealing with a fairly urgent problem.

What you also don’t consider is that things will only get harsher as the need gets greater, and it can either be America that steps up to make things easier on the economy, reaping the benefits, or it can be some other place. If you want America to be the country paying its wealth out to others for the energy to do business, fine. But I’m not going to stand for such simpering cowardice towards the future. I’ll talk more about this later. For my money, though, so much of Republican Policy is just naive hope that the market will correct the inevitable imbalance, and not simply penalize us as logic tells us it would.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #347762
Now you can call me a partisan hack for talking about the failure of Fox Viewers to keep up properly, but that’s actually documented. And before you try, not debunked.

Never once did I suggest that Fox Viewers were ‘keeping up’.

As for your quote:

Democrats are not so deeply stuck in their own little nest of liberal outlets. (and no, they don’t count the MSM as particularly liberal)

You really fall down on yourself. Because the liberal viewers of progressive focused media don’t consider them progressive doesn’t mean that they aren’t. MSNBC was taking talking points from the White House *ON AIR* during a segment not too long ago.

I would suggest reading this study… http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Your attitude towards other networks is a symptom of this kind of problem.

And that attitude is? It’s obvious you have no idea what that is… I watch different kinds of media for the precise purpose of constantly testing my own views. Of course, you know this (because we’ve had this very same discussion before) but keep ‘forgetting’ because you find it easier to ‘debate’ someone by belittling them, a shining example of what progressives and conservatives do when they are short on facts and find themselves losing an argument.

You’ve basically been taught a fundamentally unreliable way of looking at information gathered from outside sources. Problem is, all you’re going to get is your own point of view fed back to you, and where you’re wrong, you’ll be encouraged to stay wrong.

So, my own point of view is found on Democracy Now, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and FOX? I watch all of these (as well as many others) to avoid the Echo Chamber, which I wrote about on this blog not too long ago http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006749.html. Projection is a very obvious thing to see when you are always keeping your mind open and questioning everything (as I do).

Now folks like you look at situations where a majority becomes less than Libertarian, less than Conservative, and you say, “we have to nip this in the bud.” You look at it and think that the public is no longer in full possession of its faculties.

In no such way do I consider the public no longer in full possession of its faculties, what I find is that they are misinformed by a biased media feeding them what they want them to know, without questioning. Question everything, that is the rule people should be living by, not accepting whatever is told to you by others without evaluating it with a critical thought process. That critical thought is not taught in high schools is a sign of where we are today though…

You look at any differentiation from your view as a violation of the constitution.

Heh, my ‘view’ is the same as Adams and Jefferson… I think that that view is a pretty good indicator of what the Constitution says and is… The problem is that I evaluate everything as to whether it follows the constitution, both in word and spirit, knowing the mindset it was written in, and use that to help form my viewpoint. Neither the progressive nor conservative viewpoints do that, only the liberal (libertarian) view does…

And worse, when you can’t back up your views to match the constitution (both in word and spirit) you attempt to twist it to mean what YOU want it to mean, to fit YOUR view, instead of the other way around.

And so, looking through that narrow lens, you think it’s perfectly fine to obstruct, to destroy function in the govenrment that doesn’t follow your views.

Considering that that was the purpose of the constitution, to RESTRICT the federal government… That isn’t destorying the government, it is defending it.

The trick of it is, governments have to operate despite the fact that not everybody agrees. That is why Self-government needs simple majority rules standards in most cases. We’ll never get everybody, and as any Democrat or Republican in the Senate can tell you, it’s rare to get sixty senators to agree on anything, one party or the other.

First, I am all for getting rid of the filibuster if you want. The fact is, the Democrats could have and didn’t. Because they want to use it when they are no longer in power.

Second, I am not against 50%+1 rule, as long as the laws are not in voiolation of individual rights and freedoms as this country was founded upon.

So, 50%+1 is the standard for most legislation.

And Constitutionality

You misdefine self-government.No, I’m pretty sure I have nailed it right on the head.
It’s not merely the ability of one person to govern themselves. You have that even in anarchy. The trick is, how do you get things to where a a free people can govern themselves, rather than having just a few minority interests who have deemed themselves especially qualified to rule do it instead.

And this was done by ensuring that individual liberties were to be protected by a limited FEDERAL government. I’ve quoted you Adams, Jefferson, et al explaining this but as usual, the progressive mind is not interested in the individual. Only the ‘greater good’, as in socialism.

BTW, from now on, when you call libertarians ‘anarchists’ (or use the term in a way to try to tie them together as you did before) I’m going to come back with progressives being socialists… Just a heads up.

This country isn’t a totalitarian state by any stretch of the imagination.

Really? Well, let’s see…

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

I’m sorry Stephen, but that pretty much sums up the society we have today. Where what we can eat, how we take care of our healthcare, what we can put into our bodies, what type of cars we can drive, how we teach our children, how much we are forced to give to charity, etc are all there for the whims of the politicians. You even state this at the beginning of your article “Now it’s just a disagreement on what to legislate.” and you balk at limitations being made on the majority rule…

Tell me WHERE ARE THE LIMITS? With this ruling, if the republicans get into office and want to tax everyone 10,000 a year, but will give a 10,000 tax credit if you buy a flag, that would be constitutional! Replace flag with bible! You aren’t being forced to buy a bible, you just don’t get the tax credit if you don’t buy one. Do you not see how this is a horrible TOTALITARIAN ruling?

That you’ve come to believe this is sad, and a commentary on how narrow your news sources are.

No, that you don’t believe this is sad, and a commentary on how little you value individual liberty and a limited government.


As far as corporate free speech goes?

Show me the corporation that has a child, in or out of wedlock. Heck, show me one that gets married to another corporation. Show me a corporation that has to deal with the troubles of Middle School, or endure the effects of a birth defect. To treat the product of a very strained reading of the 14th Amendment as if its rights are exactly like that of the actual indviduals is absurd.

Again, you have 0 understanding of what the Citizens United ruling was, and you display it with this diatribe. The Supreme Court did not say that corporations are ‘individuals’, nor did they say that corporations had the rights of individuals. You are not arguing reality.

The whole idea is that money is free speech, but if that’s the case, does that mean corporations have more right to speech?

No, it means that individuals do not lose their right to free speech just because they are joined together with others in the form of a group (or corporation). Do you think that the NAACP or ACLU should be free to buy ads to state their views? They are corporations…

There are any number of ways you can twist the law to apply that way.
There is no twisting… “The right to free speech shall not be infringed” Ever, at all, against anyone, or any group of anyones, for any reason. That’s what ‘not infringed’ means…
Me, I think the corporations should be limited to the same amount of money you or I have the ability to give under current laws.
They are actually limited to less than you, but I’m sure you don’t get that…

See, anyone can spend any amount of money to buy an ad, make a documentary, etc to say whatever they want, whenever they want. There is no limit on that, not on individuals NOR on groups of individuals.

However, individuals are limited to how much they can donate to a candidate. Corporations are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to donate ANY money to a candidate. If they were considered ‘persons’ then that law wouldn’t be able to be applied, would it? Yet it was upheld by Citizens United…

Try using some logic and critical thinking instead of emotive reasoning, Stephen. It’ll help in future discussions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2012 7:54 PM
Comment #347765

BTW, Stephen, a timely quote from Jefferson:

The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.

I know Jefferson’s views hold no sway over you, but I just thought I would share…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2012 8:47 PM
Comment #347770

Rhinehold-
Try keeping the discussion to the issues at hand.

I think it’s fundamentally naive to compare some guy bankrolling millions of dollars in commercials for political purposes to most other avenues of political contribution. Money isn’t speech, it’s the token by which speech is delivered, at best.

It has long, back into ancient times, been established that money can have a function in subverting good government, as can political chicanery behind the scenes. Even in a government like ours, we have anti-bribery laws. Why? Because we want people making decisions about how to deal with public policy in a way that is accountable to us.

By your logic, bribery is only free speech. You’re only expressing to your Representative, your mayor, your Senator, Governor, or even President how you would prefer them to govern.

No society’s really gotten away with letting that happen. The simple fact is, people want government to be responsive to them.

We need to recognize that there are limits on even ordinary speech. We don’t allow people to say to a politician, “give me the highway project, and I’ll pay you fifty thousand dollars.” We don’t allow people to say, “vote like I want you to, or I will kill you.”

Why are limits on the amount of money people can invest to push these kinds of commericals a bar against free speech? We’re not merely talking about them making a general point here, but attempting to influence an election. We can regulate time, place and manner (thus my example of the ban against naked concerts in the middle of the street at two in the morning), why not here?

Once we get past the question of whether or not they’ve had their chance to express their point of view, the question is, do they get to express it without, say, people being required to deliver free airtime in equal amounts to interests groups who wants to speak up in reply, or, say, without revealing who they are, and who their donors are?

Perhaps the person has a conflict of interest, and they’re pushing for legislation that benefits them. If so, people should be allowed to see that for themselves.

I mean, you harp on deciding things by reason, but as a person trained in the arts of film and electronic media, I can tell that they don’t exactly go out to present a neutral argument, and most people aren’t so rationally disciplined as to interpret the fallacies properly. People aren’t necessarily stupid, but they can be swayed by faulty logic that pushes the right buttons.

People need to know who’s pushing their buttons, be given a chance to find out why.

And you really should be trying to find a compromise here, because you should realize this: this is ripe ground for the cultivation of scandals. At some point, you will see somebody who got this kind of generosity from the rich folks and others like that basically paying back their shadow contributors.

To expect otherwise is as naive as to expect those who get contributions from industry the regular way to be indifferent to those people.

And when that happens, and the event has particular public outrage value, you will see a push, if not for an Amendment to the constitution, then for court decisions and judges who will challenge the law.

Don’t you realize that the biggest vulnerability of any small government philosophy is the failure of stripped down, liberated systems to police themselves? At some point, people are going to push back, if you haven’t made damn sure that what you’re expecting to self-regulate does the job right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 9:07 PM
Comment #347773
Try keeping the discussion to the issues at hand.

I was responding to your taking the discussion to ‘what I think’ and ‘how limited my intelligence is’… If you do, I will.

I think it’s fundamentally naive to compare some guy bankrolling millions of dollars in commercials for political purposes to most other avenues of political contribution. Money isn’t speech, it’s the token by which speech is delivered, at best.

And the best way to counter that is to allow groups of people with individuall less money but combined more to have their say as well, don’t you think?

It has long, back into ancient times, been established that money can have a function in subverting good government, as can political chicanery behind the scenes. Even in a government like ours, we have anti-bribery laws. Why? Because we want people making decisions about how to deal with public policy in a way that is accountable to us.

And I agree. Except, when someone is using the fruits of their labor to get a message out (that NO ONE is forced to accept or believe) that has to be protected. And when a group of people combine the fruits of their labor to get their message out, that has to be protected as well.

I’m sorry, but yes giving money to a candidate is a clear route to bribery. Paying money to advertise your point of view, whether it will ultimately help a candidate or hurt them, is *NOT* a clear route to bribery. Any appears of bribery will get someone slapped down very hard, but we already have those laws on the books. Merely speaking our minds is the basis of a free society, if we are still one..

By your logic, bribery is only free speech.

That statement has nothing to do with ‘logic’.

You’re only expressing to your Representative, your mayor, your Senator, Governor, or even President how you would prefer them to govern.

Nope, sorry Stephen, you are way off the point here. GIVING MONEY to a candidate is not what we are talking about, that is still illegal for a corporation to do. And any quid pro quo that occurs from financing a candidate’s campaign is STILL illegal and STILL governed by anti-bribery laws…

No society’s really gotten away with letting that happen.

Good, and we aren’t anywhere near that path ourselves.

We need to recognize that there are limits on even ordinary speech.

We aren’t talking about ‘ordinary speech’, we are talking about ‘political speech’. And there should be NO LIMITS on political speech, that has been the cornerstone of what has made this country great and if we step upon it, we are doomed…

Why are limits on the amount of money people can invest to push these kinds of commericals a bar against free speech?

Because you are dictating who can say what and how often, etc.

BTW, you have to remember that Citizens United was NOT about limiting how much could be spent, but whether money could be spent AT ALL. Limiting how much someone can spend of their own money to make their views heard is still an abhorrant view, but it is far less than what Citizens United was about…

We’re not merely talking about them making a general point here, but attempting to influence an election.

ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS ABOUT THAT, GEESH. If we can’t have an open and free exchange of views and ideas, what kind of freedom can we expect to have?

We can regulate time, place and manner (thus my example of the ban against naked concerts in the middle of the street at two in the morning), why not here?

Because they are not the same thing, of course.

Once we get past the question of whether or not they’ve had their chance to express their point of view, the question is, do they get to express it without, say, people being required to deliver free airtime in equal amounts to interests groups who wants to speak up in reply, or, say, without revealing who they are, and who their donors are?

Yep. Shall not be infringed.

Perhaps the person has a conflict of interest, and they’re pushing for legislation that benefits them. If so, people should be allowed to see that for themselves.

And they will, that’s what we have a free press for, isn’t it?

I mean, you harp on deciding things by reason, but as a person trained in the arts of film and electronic media, I can tell that they don’t exactly go out to present a neutral argument, and most people aren’t so rationally disciplined as to interpret the fallacies properly. People aren’t necessarily stupid, but they can be swayed by faulty logic that pushes the right buttons.

Yes they can, so let’s educate them better, teach them better, show them ways to see the truths instead of hiding them from it…

People need to know who’s pushing their buttons, be given a chance to find out why.

They are, no one is stopping them.

And you really should be trying to find a compromise here, because you should realize this: this is ripe ground for the cultivation of scandals. At some point, you will see somebody who got this kind of generosity from the rich folks and others like that basically paying back their shadow contributors.

And if and when that happens they should be thrown in jail, they are breaking already established law.

To expect otherwise is as naive as to expect those who get contributions from industry the regular way to be indifferent to those people.

I’m sorry Stephen, but the majority of corporations that are spending money on political ads are groups like the NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club, etc. There are no ‘background deals’ going on, if there were they will be caught and punished as that is still ILLEGAL for a campaign to coordinate with any group of individuals in such a way.

And when that happens, and the event has particular public outrage value, you will see a push, if not for an Amendment to the constitution, then for court decisions and judges who will challenge the law.

And the pieces will fall where they may. Sorry Stephen, but there has already been such action over and over again that you trying to scare me to compromise my principles just isn’t in the cards. I’m sure it will work on others, but you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

Don’t you realize that the biggest vulnerability of any small government philosophy is the failure of stripped down, liberated systems to police themselves? At some point, people are going to push back, if you haven’t made damn sure that what you’re expecting to self-regulate does the job right.

Self regulation? Sorry Stephen, but is already regulated that bribery is illegal and anyone caught doing it will be put in jail. But impeding the ability for an individual or group of individuals to exercise their rights to free speech is simply not allowable, we have to err on the side of liberty, especially for political speech. You could argue the same way for a ‘poll tax’ or ‘intelligence tax’ on voting, but we err on the side of liberty here, even if it hurts us that non-informed nitwits can vote. It is still their right to be wrong.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2012 9:41 PM
Comment #347776

“Man. You guys talk more about what we believe than we do. In fact, you insist on taking much of your time to tell us what we believe. And it all seems to be this evil, destructive stuff that will destroy the country.” Stephen Daugherty.

Liberals are not hard to figure out, why would this surprise you. You believe in bigger government, higher taxes, more handouts, less capitalism, gun control, that the Constitution is outdated, and global warming. All this “stuff” is evil and is designed to destroy America as we know it.

“Look, you might want to believe we can stand, economically speaking, to weather every energy crisis from here to the end of the century, but the truth is, we’ll pay a cost in economic activity as the scarcity of our fuel goes up.”

This is all based on the left’s warped thinking which is based on unproven global warming.

“We need to be realistic, that’s all. You’re so concerned about not being told what to do, that you don’t even stop to consider that you might just be rejecting dealing with a fairly urgent problem.”

Stephen, everything the left does is “urgent”. We had to pass the ACA, before it was read; and American’s are now learning what the Democrats passed. TARP was urgent, the Stimulus was urgent, giving tax dollars to the failed green industry was urgent; I’m sorry, but you can only cry wolf so many times, then no one believes you anymore.

Stephen said:

“Rhinehold-
Try keeping the discussion to the issues at hand.”

Now this is really something to laugh at; I have noticed that Stephen likes to expand the conversation rather than actually answer a question.

I actually grow weary of Stephen’s naivety. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens in November. I have made my predictions and I stand on them.

Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #347782

Frank-
It’s naivete. I do like to expand the conversation, but to relevant subjects that touch upon a policy. In the case of fiscal matters, the economy that revenues are based on, and that Government services and contracts feed into.

I don’t see politics in terms of narrow topics. However, folks from the right responding to me have developed an awful habit of directing their remarks at me, rather than really talking about their reasoning on the subject.

I think modern Republican politics is what is naive. Republicans are still trying to sell us on letting the markets police themselves, now with yet another financial scandal wracking the banking industry with that Barclay mess. How many counterexamples must we see before that article of faith is disbelieved.

Most Climate Scientists, experts on the subject, disagree with the idea that man’s actions have not caused global warming, much less the notion that there is no warming. they’re not buying the notion that this is all just a natural cycle, at least by itself.

With energy policies we’ve had several energy crises since the early 1970s, and the oil-funded menace of al-Qaeda rising. We’ve had bridges dropping, power grids going down and staying down for weeks at a time in the wake of disaster.

But no, we don’t need to be taking measures to regulate banks and hedge funds. We don’t need to deal with the carbon emissions. In fact, trying to do so is giving into a communist plot, a fanciful thing to be sure. We don’t need to raise fuel efficiency standards, or create a new set of sources of energy to replace that which costs us billions a year we could be spending closer to home. We don’t need to be repairing or upgrading infrastructure, or anything like that. We can simply coast along, letting the bad situations hit us as hard as they can, letting the jobs that would fly out the door, fly out the door, letting domestic manufacturing sectors collapse.

Oh, and even though the Rich didn’t respond all that enthusiastically to tax cuts for their class over the last ten years, that’s going to be our main jobs policy: handing back potential revenues that could be used to keep the budget balanced to rich people who already aren’t spending significant amounts of their income. Yeah, they’ll have more significant amounts of income not to spend, just to stick in the stock market and banks, where all too much of our money is locked up anyways.

The ideas all seem fine until you unwrap the layers of propagandistic logic.

It’s just like the response to the Healthcare ruling. Did nobody in the Republican party notice that pouncing on the Mandate as Tax thing was going to rebound, say, on their current Presidential candidate? No, they heard tax, and their eyes lit up. That’s all a lot of thinking in the GOP is nowadays. Rather than simply keeping taxes low, but at a functional level, Republicans have feed back the simplistic propaganda idea into their policy, and just simply become radically anti-revenue. That, or they repeat that other great supply side bit of naivete, that the magic economic benefits of cutting taxes will be big enough to make up for the loss of revenue from cutting taxes and whatever. Did it happen under Reagan? No. Under Bush? Whichever you chose, no. Not even under Bush’s big one.

You say we’re not hard to figure out, judging by the results, you’ve underestimated the difficulty. What you have figured out is a line of propaganda that’s been recycled as received wisdom. This is what people said to push buttons about Democrats, this is not what old tyme conservatives all thought. You’ve bought into this distorted fiction, and tried to make it real.

As for “crying wolf?”

Let’s take this so-called debt crisis of ours. Have effective interest rates spiraled upwards? Core inflation? Has the nation collapsed yet, has Obama taken your guns away? Are Christians and conservatives being rounded up in FEMA camps?

The Financial crisis was real. The healthcare crisis is real. Global Warming, as poor plains states folks can tell you, is very real. A lot of things really are nuts, and the biggest financial problem facing us in the next few months, besides employment, are the sequesters your people forced on us. You want to talk about crying wolf, let’s talk about what actually went on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2012 1:29 AM
Comment #347790

SD

The straight and narrow focus. The UN will be presented with a treaty to control our guns. That is part of Obama’s plan. That is the act of dictatorial people. Obama knows (he is a Constitutional authority?) the second amendment and he knows it well. This is nothing but a globalist approach to smack down the American people in the grossest manner possible. The second amendment is just as important as any of the bill of rights. It is to limit the control of the federal government to control firearms. They have failed. And Obama should have to answer to yet another end around the Constitution.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 6:49 AM
Comment #347791

“The UN will be presented with a treaty to control our guns. That is part of Obama’s plan.”

The position of the Obama Administration on this proposed treaty for control of international small arms trafficking is that the US will not agree to any limitation on internal domestic US manufacture, sale, ownership, transfer or any other limitation contrary to the 2nd Amendment. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

This should not be surprising since the administration couldn’t enter into a treaty compromising a Constitutional right.

Posted by: Rich at July 4, 2012 7:43 AM
Comment #347796

I hope everybody looks at what tom humes has posted there. This is the kind of thing people like him actually believe. But then they turn around and call people like me liars, people like me deluded.

The Right has taken leave of its reason on so many levels, and this is one of them. Once a upon a time, if you peddled conspiracy theories about the UN, the right would reject you. Now, this insanity is embraced wholeheartedly.

I think it’s time for people to remember how much more rational we once were, and to start returning some intellectual, logical, and rhetorical discipline to our nation’s politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2012 10:19 AM
Comment #347802

Rich

The UN Charter is a treaty. How much bigger does it get?

SD

We shall see?

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 12:25 PM
Comment #347808

tom,

Treaties require a full 2/3 approval from the Senate.

The chain e-mail about this was debunked in 2009;

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

and your facts haven’t gotten much better about this;

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/


Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2012 1:09 PM
Comment #347815

“The UN Charter is a treaty. How much bigger does it get?”

Tom,

Well, there is the Constitution. While a treaty is the law of the land and will trump legislative law, it will not trump the Constitution. So, relax. No UN sponsored treaty threatens any 2nd Amendment rights. In addition, the Obama administration has explicitly stated to conference participants that it will not support a treaty which in any way effects domestic US gun rights.

Posted by: Rich at July 4, 2012 3:51 PM
Comment #347818

Rocky

It became news again this past week

Rich

A treaty supercedes everything. Read the Constitution for a direct quote.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 4:03 PM
Comment #347820

tom,

“Read the Constitution for a direct quote.”

By all means, read the Constitution;

Article 2, section 2;

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Now, exactly where does it say that the President, by executive fiat, can bypass the Constitution, and Senate, and take away your guns?

We have been hearing all of this baloney about how Obama is going to nullify the Second Amendment since he took office.

Which of your Second Amendment rights have you lost since Obama has taken office?

All of this speculation and conspiracy theory stuff makes me want to invest in tinfoil, because apparently I could be making a killing off of the sales.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #347823

Let me do your work for you.

Article VI

“2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Show me what you think it says, since you believe in a “living document” and see what spin you can create.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #347825

This whole conspiracy to take away your guns by the President would be humorous if it wasn’t wasting tax dollars with inane investigations operating on a lot of hyperbole and no facts. Obama has done nothing to infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights nor all of the imagined rights that the NRA crowd has invented for themselves.

While I believe that the Second Amendment stopped being a check on the federal government in the 19th century. It’s still in the Constitution and must be honored. However, no where in this amendment is a guarantee to the right to manufacture arms for sale. Or that the government cannot regulate the manufacture of guns, ammo, and accessories. The Democrats have been pretty spineless in standing up to the gun lobby and have dug their own hole. It doesn’t help that we are unable to even have a sane debate on the issue since one side doesn’t seem to be interested in using facts, reason, or logic but instead rely on anger, emotion, an non sequiturs.

Posted by: tcsned at July 4, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #347826

tom,

Show me what you think it says, since you believe in a “living document” and see what spin you can create.”

I don’t know where you got the idea that I believe the Constitution is a living document, as I have never said that on these pages.

But that’s not the point…

Since you don’t seem to be paying attention, this is my version of “News for the deaf”

TOM, YOUR POINT IS MOOT BECAUSE THE TREATY WILL NEVER BE APPROVED BY 2/3’S OF THE SENATE. IT WILL NEVER GET THAT FAR

Someone is blowing smoke up your skirt and you are buying it.

Please, use some common sense.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #347828

tom humes-
I think you fundamentally misread the test. Just think for a second: the Framers wrote the constitution such that the President and the Senate could overwhelm it’s terms simply by agreeing to an treaty?

No. If you look, we see two other kinds of law listed as being the law of the land first, the Constitution itself, and Federal law made under it. Only then do we come to treaties.

What’s superseded is any state constitution, state law, or local law regarding the matters that the Federal government takes on. The point of this is so that, say, New York can’t write its own copyright statute, North Carolina can’t dishonor the terms of a treaty on trade with a law, or whatever else. Just as no federal law can remain binding if it’s unconstitutional, so can no treaty.

This is just the kind of baseless paranoia that needlessly creates anxieties and the anger and hatred and fear that comes with all that.

Stop worrying about stupid crap. We have enough real problems in this world without creating new ones by reacting to false threats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2012 8:07 PM
Comment #347830

As for the living constitution?

We’re a living country, a country that changes even as the bulk of laws and the constitution itself doesn’t. The law isn’t simply applied like the directions in a manual, it’s interpreted in order to fit it to the often chaotic and jumbled real world. So the question is, does the Constitution moulder away, a relic of previous times, or do we take it’s core meaning and adapt it as we can to the world as it is now?

We can’t expect to be able to respond to every new problem and new controversy with another amendment. We have to fit the constitution to things as they are, while not violating it.

I grow tired of being told that my wish for the constitution to be interpreted properly for modern day means I want it broken, much less broken as casually as you claim. That is just partisan trash talk, and has no business in a serious discussion of how we interpret law.

The question is, how far we take the interpretation, and under what justification, and most importantly, whether it works to fulfill the the spirit of the constitutional law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2012 8:15 PM
Comment #347833

SD and others

You should consult a constitutional attorney. You will find that treaties are above the constitution.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #347834

Tom,

“You should consult a constitutional attorney. You will find that treaties are above the constitution.”

Except that treaties have to be ratified by 2/3’s of the Senate you actually might have a point.
The President can negotiate a treaty, he can suggest that it be passed, but it has to be approved by the Senate before it becomes the law of the land.

Why do you think we are not living under the Kyoto protocols?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #347840

Since when has Obama ever cared what the Constitution said? He would simply just, once again, impose imperial decree (EP).

Posted by: TomT at July 4, 2012 10:04 PM
Comment #347841

TomT,

“He would simply just, once again, impose imperial decree (EP).”

Bush invoked Executive Privilege 6 times. Obama once.

An Imperial decree still has to ratified by the Senate.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2012 10:11 PM
Comment #347862

I have no beef with the 2/3 vote. There is no argument there. There seems to be a misinterpretation of Article VI Section 2 about the treaties being above the Constitution. SD seems to think no so. It is very plain that treaties are above the Constitution. I will repeat the UN Charter is a treaty and things done in those chambers are not to the benefit of the United States.

Both Obama and Clinton have endorsed the gun ban. Getting it done depends upon the make up of the Senate. A new president also will weigh in on the policy.

All I did was mention that the Obama administration was in favor of banning guns, which would also include manufacture, sale, etc of such.

Have you come to your senses yet, SD concerning treaties and the Constitution?

Posted by: tom humes at July 5, 2012 10:24 AM
Comment #347863

tom humes-

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

If Treaties are subject to the Federal Court’s power, then they are subject to judicial review. If they are subject to judicial review, then no treaty can be made, much less ratified which abrogates the rights of an American Citizen under the Constitution. The treaty power is an expressed power of the Executive Branch, and other decisions made by that Branch are also subject to judicial review, as would be necessary to carry out the mandate to interpret federal law and the constitutional review of prosecutions, police activity, and other such matters of executive branch power.

Additionally, the Supremacy clause is plainly aimed at the state constitutions and state laws, meaning that where Congress has its express power at work, or where the Executive branch and the Senate have agreed on a treaty, no state can legislate or ratify something to their constitution that defies it. You have identified the wrong target.

So: 1) Matters of treaty law have original jurisdiction in the courts, are subject to the authority of the judiciary.
2) Matters of Executive Authority, including police powers, prosecutions, Agency regulations, etc are also subject to judicial review, why not Treaties?
3) If Treaties are subject to judicial review, then by definition any unconstitutional treaty would be struck down by the authority of the courts, held null and void.

On the other argument, the logic goes like this:

The Supremacy clause in full reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think that what we have here, for those who believe in the threat that you do, is one of two logical missteps. The express, literal phrase for treaties is “under the authority of the United States”, and that is perhaps taken to mean that it’s not subordinate to the constitution, as “the Laws of the United States” most decidedly are.

The Constitution, though, treats the actions of the executive, like, say, police taking away cameras away from protestors for filming them at work, as subject to judicial review. The authority of the United States rests in the Executive to write up treaties, and in the Legislature to advise and consent, with a two thirds vote required for passage.

Your argument, which is absurd, is that the Constitution hands the executive the ability to get around its own “law of the land”, that all “law of the land” had equal authority.

Even more egregiously, some of y’all misinterpret the final part of that clause, which reads, “and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“Which constitution?” is the question you fail to ask.

The Framers, in particular Madison and Hamilton explain the clause in terms of the states, in terms of preventing a situation in which a “monster” develops, where the “the head was under the direction of the members.”

The whole point of the Supremacy clause is to bar states from legislating or having different policies where the Federal Government has authority. It’s necessary to the health of a Republic that if the President signs a treaty, and the Senate ratifies it, the States not be able to essentially create their own foreign policy.

So, the constitution we’re talking about being overridden isn’t ours. It’s those of the states, and their laws as well.

All of this being true, your fears are not well-founded.

I think this demonstrates the hazards of being too literal interpretation, too contemptuous about going by the meaning behind things. If you’re merely thinking in terms of what a literal set of words might mean, you can often run into situations where phrasing and punctuation kick you into wildly different meanings.

However, if you let history, the known and logically derivable intent of lawmakers to ender into things, you can prevent these kinds of monsters of interpretation, and get back to something that makes sense.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2012 11:50 AM
Comment #347868

SD

“Your argument, which is absurd, is that the Constitution hands the executive the ability to get around its own “law of the land”, that all “law of the land” had equal authority.”

Where did you read that my argument was such as you printed?

Your playing in the mud.

You once again spin this as something that is not in question.

I am not beefing about the states and their situation, I am only arguing about treaties and the Constitution.

Do you have a word count you have to meet in your value system and standards? You added stuff that was not even part of the writeup. Just something to write to feel important. You’re not important. And neither am I. It must me approached once again that your elitist mindset is so mushy that you are the only one here smart enough and “brilliant” enough to see through things. It is not so. You need to humble yourself. That is not ordered, it is only a suggestion that will serve you well.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 5, 2012 12:49 PM
Comment #347869
You should consult a constitutional attorney. You will find that treaties are above the constitution.

Actually, that is the opposite of the truth…

Treaties cannot violate the constitution, period. End of story.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2012 1:28 PM
Comment #347878

tom humes-
Look, I’m laying out to you some rather basic ideas:
1) Treaties are judicially reviewable. The courts can strike down treaties that overstep their bounds.
2) Treaties are included with federal laws (that is, laws made pursuant to the constitution), but federal laws are not held to have extraconstitutional authority.
3) The constitution mentioned in the latter half of the clause isn’t the national one, but any of the state’s constitutions, along with their laws. The Supremacy Clauses is properly read as giving the federal government the exclusive authority where federal matters are concerned. Thus the ruling on the Arizona law.

And of course, as another liberal pointed out, it first has to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. For this to happen, about 13 or 14 Republicans would have to join with EVERY Democrat to ratify. That includes Sen. Manchin!

You know, as a conservative, if its policy that matters to you, shouldn’t you be more careful to pick fights about things that actually have a danger of coming to pass?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene recounted how under some circumstances, being aggressive, and itching to get into every fight can be a liability for a creature’s survival and reproductive success. Put simply, every fight carries a risk of injury, or a distraction that allows the others to outmanuever you to get something you want.

Because Republicans will fight Democrats on everything, I think they will wear themselves and their supporters out, and put themselves in more desperate, vulnerable circumstances than they’d be otherwise.

Take the Healthcare Mandate decision. Sure, it sounded like something for them to jump at. But because they failed to read the basic lay of the land (that their candidate wasn’t the ideal person to condemn Obama on a mandate), they’ve stuck themselves and their candidate in series of bad positions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2012 5:37 PM
Comment #347881

Pretty much what I said and warned about the Senate makeup in the future. This is not quite ready to be brought to the Senate yet, but it will be shortly.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 5, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #347882

?
It’ll never pass if it actually abrogates second amendment rights. Unjustified paranoia.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2012 6:21 PM
Post a comment