AlanGreenSpam schools Obama on the keys to economics:
It’s clear Obamao has NO UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC ECONOMICS.F15Eagle brings the Freeper position on Obama:
It’s truly embarrasing that the POTUS doesn’t even understand ANY of these concepts taught in any Econ 101 class:
-the “Law of Supply & Demand”
-the Laffer Curve
-the Profit Incentive
This author assumes he’s here to save America, and not destroy it, which is the real goal.Vaquero agrees - Obama's evil plans are evil:
Zer0 does not need to go to business night school..... He is doing just fine destroying our wealth. After all that’s his job as first Marxist president.libstripper also:
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Vladimir Lenin
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
Vladimir Lenin
bus. School wouldn’t have done zip good for the Mahdi, a lifelong subhuman Islamocommunist, who bitterly hates America, Americans, and every good thing America stands for.polymuser brings up another Freeper trope:
I believe Soros’ puppet hand understands precisely.ProtectOurFreedom - Obama's too Communist to listen to the real facts:
Roger, he’s a COMMUNIST. Commies believe in fairy tales like “Marxian economics” and are hence immune to facts, logic, and empirical evidence.FredZarguna builds on the theme - education makes you crazy:
Besides, his true mission is to destroy the United States, not make us safe, prosperous, and happy.
You really ought to understand that by now.
School isn't the solution, it's the problem. The kind of schooling is immaterial.ridesthemiles would drive all his employees away to spite Obama:
In 0bama's [putative] mind, there's no difference between pictures and words you see in a book, and reality. When these don't match, he doesn't adjust his worldview to conform to objective facts, he simply accepts increasingly delusional defense mechanisms to protect himself from the truth.
That's the nature of mental illness. That's the nature of liberalism. But I repeat myself.
What 0bama should have been forced to do, what all "public servants" should be forced to do, is have a few years of experience working in a non-academic, non-government, non-government-grant related job as a condition for eligibility to hold office.
Not more schooling.
More reality.
IF I ran a business which had a number of contracted salaried employees, I would void all of the contracts, and blame the ‘Obama rules’.
I cannot do what the contract says & do what Obama rules say at the same time.
The perks of taking time off without being docked would disappear.
Requiring all employees to clock in would magically appear—by Monday morning hence.
FREE parking might also disappear. In case you think that you can always park for free on company property, think again.
Universal Studios—MCA—has charged employees for parking for years. I worked there from 1971 to 1975 & I paid $2.50 a week—while making about $8 an hour. I really pissed them off when I challenged charging me that parking fee when I was on VACATION. I got it removed on our vacation checks. BTW- we didn’t have assigned parking-—everything was first come, first served on most of the lot. Only the executives & stars got labeled parking.
Doesn’t sound like a big deal? There were always about 7,000 employees on the Universal property per week in those days. A 2 week vacation check deducted $5 for ‘parking’. That amounts to $35,000 extra money to the company for every 2 week vacation. More for the 3 & 4 week vacationers.
Other perks would also disappear. Lots of companies have a ‘birthday’ day once a month to celebrate everybody’s birthday in that month. Others put out free coffee- hot chocolate & tea. There are a lot of items that many companies provide which can disappear.
Obama doesn’t have a clue about what happens with his ‘rules’....but he knows darn well he is creating chaos.
I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between grade point average achieved in school, and the propensity to call for the abolishment of the public school system.
ReplyDeleteI would guess the average high school GPA among freepers was a two point something, at least for those few who didn't drop out.
I dunno - Freepers are certainly good at focus and dedication, I could see some of them doing really well. Remember intelligence is not congruent with wisdom.
DeleteThe question is how early their self-righteous contempt for non-Freeper authority kicked in.
In 0bama's [putative] mind, there's no difference between pictures and words you see in a book, and reality. When these don't match, he doesn't adjust his worldview to conform to objective facts, he simply accepts increasingly delusional defense mechanisms to protect himself from the truth.
ReplyDeleteSo Obama is a Freeper?
You beat me to it.
DeleteFor example, see: Butterdezillion.
Oh man, she's gotten too nutty even for FR. She's now hanging out at abovetopsecret, a place for conspiracy loons and wackos.
DeleteLinks plz? K thax
DeleteHere's her initial post to the forum. And her list of posts can be found here.
DeletePlease do go on about how the big bad Obamacare screwed your wife over.
ReplyDeleteYes, please explain how increased quality regulations screwed you ever. #smellslikefreeperfiction
ReplyDeleteYou censored "heel" and not "shit"? Interesting.
ReplyDeleteObamacare isn't an insurance plan; it's an act of congress. Private companies provide insurance. If your insurance plan doesn't cover your prescriptions anymore, why not? Can you explain?
Since you are posting as William Rivers Pitt, I can only assume that your complaint about Obamacare is that it doesn't go far enough. I can agree with that, as I wish that we could have gotten single payer, or at least the public option. But surely you can agree that what we got is a step up from what we had before, where an insurance company could throw you off your policy the minute you got sick. I'll take what I can get for now and hopefully we'll be able to get more in the future.
ReplyDelete"It’s clear Obamao has NO UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC ECONOMICS.
ReplyDeleteIt’s truly embarrasing that the POTUS doesn’t even understand ANY of these concepts taught in any Econ 101 class:
-the Laffer Curve"
I'm pretty sure Obama knows what the Laffer Curve is, and knows that the application of it has been laughable
Assuming it is the real William Rivers Pitt - who I had the pleasure of chatting to today on FB (eyebrow, mate) - then yes, he got fucked over, big time.
ReplyDeleteHe took Obamacare at face value. You would have too, in his position. Pushed it hard - and for what? Nada. Jack shit.
Single payer isn't much better. I live in a single payer system. I got dumped from my doctor last month - because I am healthy and haven't had to see her since 2006. Pain in the ass re-registering, too.
So what would you suggest? Do you think what we had in the U.S. before was better? I'm aware that every system has its faults and no system is perfect, but at least you don't have to fight insurance companies to pay for a pre-existing condition, or go broke paying premiums for insurance that may run out on you if you stay in the hospital too long. And frankly, I trust the government more than I do some large corporation that is only focused on how to make more money that goes to support politicians who will make them more money at the expense of their customers.
ReplyDeleteAlright. You have a head on your shoulders, so serious answer time - not the dismissive BS (PS - I ain't a brony but enjoy MLP:FiM. What is not to like? Just popping that in as a FU to the asshole who keeps mentioning it. Seriously, screw him.).
ReplyDeleteNo system is perfect. Ever. Single payer is not perfect. You, as in every single person, pours a river of cash to the government. This would be the same government that sees nothing wrong with spending $400 for a hammer. Do you really trust them not to scratch around the back of the sofa cushions when it comes time to pay for some serious surgery? I mentioned already, in a single payer system, which takes 9% of my gross income, I got dropped by my doctor for daring to be healthy enough not to have needed to see her since 2006. I happened to need to see her for an X-ray (broke my shoulder long story) which is why I found out. I have my appointment. It's in 5 weeks. Damned thing will be healed by then.
Insurance lead health care? The company is out for one thing. Profit. Sort of their job, isn't it? Don't think as a customer, for a second. Think as a shareholder. You just dropped the price of a house on a company. You want a damned good return. Risk pools change - constantly. If you don't mind me making a small assumption - you grew up with the idea of HIV? In medical terms in the early 80's, that shit came out of no where. It couldn't be planned for because it simply didn't exist, and actuarial tables are multi generational.
Then take Obamacare. Is it single payer? No, though you get shafted if you don't pay. Is it insurance based? Also no, since HSS decides what is and isn't acceptable. Who benefits?
You don't. Not saying you personally have had your hours trimmed to evade the requirement, but you probably know someone who has had to embrace that particular suck.
The Insurance companies? Yep - selected ones are making bank. Others, well they are not doing so well.
The Doctors? Phone around your local area. If you can find 10 doctors within 30 miles of you who are expanding their practice, I'll eat a Scotch Bonnet pepper. (Don't take the bet - I like heat.)
Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act if you really like mangling English, is a con, a rip off, and the worst possible combination of public and private finance sine Enron.
Fair enough (although I disagree that the ACA is a con or a rip off), but then what system would you suggest? The system we had in the U.S. before the ACA was great if you were healthy. Not so much if your condition was determined to be pre-existing (even pregnancy counted in some cases). So again, what would you suggest?
ReplyDeleteIf I were that smart, I'd be Scrooge McDucking in a pool of gold! Nice thought, but it's never going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI got the single payer system. I have also a secondary medical system that I earned the hard way (being shot a few times - not exactly an easy way to get medical or dental!) but at least you get seen fast.
I honestly don't know. I just know that this current system is wrong. It is taking the worst aspects of both systems.
I got to grab some sleep, had a heavy day - all fucking paperwork. Talk tomorrow?
Sure, we can talk tomorrow. Just reply here and I'll get an e-mail telling me. And here's a question you can answer tomorrow. How would you rank the following systems from best to worst: single payer, public option, the current ACA, or the previous system in the U.S.? FYI, the way I listed them here is how I rank them from best to worst.
ReplyDeleteHmm - and I woke up. Kids are no respecters of sleep.
ReplyDeleteI know the disadvantages of single payer far too well to be unbiased about it. On the plus side, everyone pays, and everyone is covered. On the down side - unless you plan your illness in advance, you will be well again (or dead) before you see a doctor. To give you both a plus and a minus - My Mom had a lump in her breast. (don't say eww, that was my first response). She was in OR the same day and is now 5 years clear. Dad, at exactly the same time, noticed his eyesight wasn't what it was. It took 5 years to get his cataracts looked at. He's the driver. I appreciate both of them being treated, but they had a shitty few years when Mom was fine, but they couldn't go anywhere. (Mom is legally blind, and has been since I was about 12. Her usual response to sympathy is fuck that.)
Public option - I am not sure what you mean. Dude can't know everything and there is no shame in asking :)
The previous system? I am mildly in favor of it. You got health insurance, it's because you are working. Or your spouse is working. Kill the sex related thing - who gives a shit what sex your spouse is - and it works for me. I'm not exactly forward thinking about that. Health care is limited. There are only so many doctors or nurses per thousand - I'd rather people who contribute move to the head of the line. I may change my mind when I retire and need more medical!
ACA - It's the worst of all worlds. You got something promising single payer but with the extra layer of profit taking. Look - I sort of have this now. I am required to have a full work up medical every 6 months - CAT scans, full blood work up, the works. Annoying since it is a full day and I can not eat. It costs me nothing. It costs my employer big money.
Now that is a contract between me and my employer. Private contract, if you like, and they swallow the cost of risking my ass and my health (DU rounds are not life friendly)
Anyway - slightly rambling. I am tired.
Public option means that you can choose between a private insurance company or a government plan. Obama (and others) compared it to UPS and FedEx vs. the Post Office.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the ACA, I see it as a vast improvement over our previous healthcare system (I'm not sure who or what is promising single payer or what you mean by that). There were people going broke trying to pay hospital bills they couldn't afford and dying in their homes because treatable diseases weren't caught in the early stages. Something had to be done, and in my opinion, this was better than nothing. We tried it out in Massachusetts back when Republicans liked it, and it worked really well there. But maybe on the national level it will be a disaster. Time will tell, and if I'm wrong about it being better than our old system, I'll admit it (unlike Freeper types who will go to their graves insisting it was handed to Obama straight from Satan).
I just find it funny how Romney called MassHealth a model for the nation as late as 2009, a plan that was derived from The Heritage Foundation, and now they're all calling it socialism.
Thanks for the explanation of public option. I could have looked it up, but would we have used the same definition?
ReplyDeleteIn theory, single payer is perfect. Like so much theory, it comes up short when dealing with actual people. Someone spends 7 to 9 years training for a particular job, they are going to want to get paid for their effort. Drug companies have a reasonable wish to be repaid not only for the cost of developing, testing and getting a new drug approved, but also for the 99 other drugs in the same development cycle that didn't pan out. Those both reduce the "Walmart effect" of a single payer system to negligible.
The only way single payer can work cheaply and efficiently is if all medical research is sponsored by the government. A lofty ideal, and one with some merit, until you think about it and realize you are asking the same people who couldn't organize an orgy in a brothel to organize long term health care.
I agree that MassHealth seems to be working at the moment. Maybe Obamacare will work out in the end - who knows? Health care is one of those things with a long lead time. I am in the NHS over here, and it worked well for 40 years before it started to splutter and fail. It was the usual suspects - too much money to managers and not enough to front line staff, removing beds and small local hospitals in favor of bigger central hospitals, a work culture that made it hard to retain doctors and nurses .... the list goes on.
Anyway - have a great weekend!
Yep, it's good to keep an open mind. And I'm sure there are also people in your country that love your country's healthcare, just like there are people in the U.S. that love our pre-ACA system. I think no matter what we come up with, some people are going to be dissatisfied.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I tend to be skeptical of right-wing criticism of the ACA, because they tend to be unthinking, knee-jerk criticisms that just parrot whatever uninformed talking head has told them to say. I'm glad I was actually able to hear an intelligent, well thought-out conservative criticism, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you said.
If everyone agreed about everything, life would be boring as hell! I won't agree with everything you say or think. And that is fine.
ReplyDeleteThough I do think I am in the majority as far as conservatives go. Most on us just want to be left alone to live our lives with fairly minimal interference.
I will tell you one thing - conservatives tend to be older. The hardest thing to keep when you get older is your sense of optimism and wonder. (I'm pushing 60 and it is a struggle some days NOT to hit the pessimism switch)
You get the gut reaction to reject something new in favor of the past - the past which your mind has spent decades sanitizing and cherry picking the good bits from.
If you have traveled a lot, well, there is nothing really new under the sun. I mean traveled old style, you get down and dirty and live with people, not in some five star hotel (though their brunches tend to be amazing value and the swimming pool is often a life saver!) The bobbleheads on the radio, TV or on FR are a simple way of dealing with a world that changes faster every year. Time is a bitch. The less you have left, the faster it goes.
But, as you get older, if you keep your mind open, you accept that life changes. Got no choice - it hits you hard in the nose every so often. Then it is down to you - do you accept the change or not?
I agree to a point, but optimism and wonder are not the only things about being a liberal. Hell, I can be pretty pessimistic myself, and it's the same for my parents who are mid to late 60s. Although, the older I get, the more excited I find myself becoming about new things, but maybe that's because I'm a tech geek. I think back over my life and I can't think of a time I'd rather live in than right now. The '70s, with a parade of lackluster presidents, bad fashion and worse music? No thanks. The '80s with mostly one bad Alzheimer's-suffering president? Nope. The '90s and the Republican witch-hunt for Bill Clinton's dick? At least the economy was good, but then we'd have to go through the 2000s again with the dimbulb president and I can't take that again. I'm reasonably satisfied with Obama, but I wish he had realized sooner like the rest of us that Republicans weren't interested in governing, but only in making him look bad. Hell, at this point my only hope is that the future is better.
ReplyDeleteI always liked Bill Clinton. Yeah, so he's a rogue, but he's my style of rogue and he's a charming fucker :)
ReplyDeleteTo be fair - I like GWB too. Him, I met back in '03. Thanksgiving, we were stationing through Basra and baffled at actually getting an edible meal. (that is somewhere between rare and none existent in mess hall!)
He sat down with us and just talked. No side to him, no BS,he honestly wanted to know what we thought. His detail were pretty much pissing themselves since all of us were armed (our orders are somewhat different from the US - we are required to be armed and with one in the spout at all times, even on base). :D Weren't none of us happy to be there (duh), but he had the people skills, you know? You felt like the only person in the room when he talked to you. Remember - we couldn't vote for him. Not a single one of us on that table was from the US. He didn't care. Just wanted to shoot the shit and tried to hook a lift on my baby (a very ancient MiL-24). I respect that.
Now Obama is a different kettle of fish. Dude had a ton of potential - and yes, I was rooting for him in '08. Rather hard, actually. He's disappointed me. Not with his policy - those we would never agree on. But for God's sake, the first Black president? Can't we finally lay this race shit to rest for good?
I liked Bill Clinton too, which is why I hated the whole witch hunt thing. Bush, I'm sure could be a great person face to face, but he basically took two extremely close elections, one in which he didn't win the popular vote, and acted like he had been handed a Reagan landslide. I was only mildly against him at first, but when he took us into Iraq, that's when he started to piss me off. For God's sake, even I could see that he was lying his ass off about WMDs in 2003. If he hadn't done that, I probably never would have gotten as deep into politics as I am now, or at least my interest in politics would be much less.
ReplyDeleteAs for Obama and the whole "first black president" thing, yeah it's a milestone for the nation, but I think the RWNJs, who will always hate him no matter what, make a bigger deal about it than liberals do (probably because a lot of the liberals are disappointed he's not as far to the left as they hoped). I think Obama seems to be a rather unassuming man who lets his actions speak for themselves. I never saw him play the race card once.
Obama never plays the race card. Doesn't need to, others play it for him. To me, that is wrong and I hate it with a passion.
ReplyDeleteAugust 28th, 1963 - I were 6 at the time, and Dad pulled me out of bed to watch a speech on the late night news. Remember that well. I had a small Tupperware bowl of potato chips, a glass of ginger ale, was up after 10 PM, and a man on the screen was telling me that color means jack. Judge a person by their character only. It sort of stuck with me. (My Dad is rather smart - we had an all night picnic on the lawn with the radio playing the night of the moon landing, so any minimal good in me is strictly down to him!)
Never going to agree with Obama. I dislike him, he's a terrible CinC, weak when he should be strong, and strong when he should chill out and listen, and he's a bit of a petulant sod. I'd just like to be able to respect him, you know? It is uncomfortable respecting the office but not the person. Only thing he's got right so far is appointing Caroline Kennedy as Japanese Ambassador. (No idea why, but the Japanese really respect JFK. Sure, he was one tough SOB, but there has to be something I am missing.)
Not going to disagree with you about Iraq - it was a fools errand, took attention away from the real problem, and was ultimately futile. I spent 3 years there. The people are lovely - you'd like them once you get past the fatalism (that is more difficult than it sounds).
I guess I just don't see the same person you do. Petulant? That's not even on the list of words I'd use to describe him. Quite the opposite, actually. He's bent over backwards trying to meet Republicans halfway only for them to filibuster the exact proposal they asked him to pass. Weak when he should be strong? I think you're seeing the Freeper/FOX News version of him. I think he knows exactly when to use strength and when to listen. That's one of the reasons I like him. I'd like to see an example of a time you thought he was petulant or weak.
ReplyDeleteAs far as others playing the race card for him, he can't really control what other people do, can he? Plus, it's not playing the race card when people point out actual racism. And it's not just Free Republic, either. I've seen horrifying racism leveled at the president for the past 6 years. A prime example of that is the birther movement who is demanding something of Obama that no other president has ever had to produce.
Honestly, I think history will look very kindly on Obama's presidency. He's a man who patiently (almost too much so) dealt with Republican recalcitrance, made a lot of tough decisions which turned out to be correct, and rose above it all with a kind of quiet dignity.
Of course he can't control what other people do! Nor should he be able to. I love watching the worst of the Freepers - they have this weird idea that he is both a retarded puppet (deliberate word choice) and some evil super genius. And yes - a ton of racism, not all from the right, is leveled at him.
ReplyDeleteBirthers - well, everyone has an embarrassing uncle. They can be downright obnoxious at times yet I can sort of see where they are coming from. Everything of importance is sealed, and what isn't sealed (Dreams From My Father) is fictionalized beyond recognition. This is a guy who was well off, went to Columbia and Harvard, lectured (as an associate or guest lecturer) on the consitution - and none of that is available. Hell, we know Bill Clinton nearly failed calculus, got himself a deferment from the draft and was a total party animal at Oxford. GWB was a real party animal, a binge drinker and had an eye for the ladies before he got married. He spoke folksie, but was no moron (You do not sit a moron in the cockpit of a multi million dollar fighter!) Almost everything is public. Open book.
I don't know why the current President has sealed all his records. Nor do I care, it is a matter of indifference to me. It just looks odd, you know?
Now- the petulant issue. Count up how many times the House has worked on legislation in the past 4 years that Pres. Obama has publicly said he would veto. You are going to run out of fingers, fast.
He also lies because he can not abide being wrong. To swing back to the ACA (yeah I'll call it that in respect for you) he lied about it constantly. It is too well documented to be dismissed. Syria? His famed red line became "the World's" red line in the course of a single speech. His bluster and BS meant nothing. (Syria is a sore point for me - I have been there a few times. Like the people and what is left is still beautiful).
Anyway - it's a sunny day, so going to take the kids to play in the park. Getting nagged here! Talk more later.
Exactly what has Obama sealed? I don't recall anything, other than what RWNJs said that he sealed. If you count him not releasing every scrap of paper from kindergarten on as "sealing," then I suppose so. Excuse the sarcasm, but I find this charge of Obama "sealing" his records to be a very tiresome and false accusation with no evidence to back it up.
ReplyDeleteAs for your petulance charge, do you really suppose that he would sign a bill into law that he strongly disagrees with? A veto is part of a president's power, not petulance. And I would argue that it was congress that was petulant for trying to pass legislation that they knew ahead of time that Obama was strongly against and would never get through a Democratic-controlled senate. Besides, at least he warned them so that they wouldn't waste time trying to pass legislation that was going nowhere and was just for show in order to pander to their base (not like that would stop them anyway).
Also Obama can't abide being wrong? Since when? Again, that's the FOX News version of Obama. Are you saying you want a president that is always wrong? As for the ACA (and I honestly don't care if you want to waste the keystrokes to call it Obamacare, the term is just fine with me), yes it turns out he lied about that "if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it." He should have added the qualifier, "unless your insurance company cancels bad policies to comply with the law." All indications say that he knew that would probably happen but he didn't qualify that. As for the red line for Syria, at least he recognized that the U.S. couldn't do it alone and had to have help. Much different from Bush's stance that he was going to invade Iraq no matter what.
Have fun at the park. Me, I've discovered this game called 2048 that I can't seem to stop playing. I guess it's the math geek in me.
The park was fun. Bunch of us parents built it on donated land (It's part of the common, so technically we all own it) and the kids adore it. They are a little upset that the tree house is gone - we had a bit of wind and the tree holding it fell over - but everything else is still there (though the paddling pool is empty right now, too bloody cold for that!) We are using the remains of the tree to build benches for the parents to sit on. It's a nice place. Loads of flowers all year round. The primary school do classes in it in the summer. :D
ReplyDeleteIf you like math based games - try Calculords, and not just because it is written by a comic genius (If you've never read any Seanbaby, you haven't lived! I recommend his SIMS article on Cracked) It is genuinely fun and deceptively difficult.
The thing about the president is he's the president of everyone. Not just the people who voted for him, but every person in the country. Reagan understood that. Clinton definitely understood that. GWB - he had his moments, but yes, he was more partisan and Iraq was a terrible mistake. Carter went too far the other way, despite being a decent man (his brother is a total dick though). Nixon hated everyone, so I guess you could call him even handed if you want to be charitable :P
What is annoying me most about the current administration is they spend more time evading the checks and balances that were built in to the system than doing what a good President should - persuading people.
Maybe I am doing that idealizing the past thing? Hope not but I am only human.
Thanks, I'll have to try Calculords. If I can ever tear myself away from 2048, that is. ;)
ReplyDeleteObama has never tried to evade the checks and balances. In fact he's tried too hard to work within them. Remember, Mitch McConnell said during his first term that their number one goal was to make him a one-term president. We now know that shortly after Obama was sworn in in 2009, Republicans had a meeting and agreed to oppose Obama on everything, no matter what he proposed. How is he supposed to work with people like that? Despite that, Obama has issued among the fewest executive orders of any president, and only done things that the president is legally allowed to do in order to get things done. So no, he hasn't evaded any checks and balances, and he's tried his hardest to persuade people. Maybe he's not as good at it as President Clinton was, but I think even Clinton would have a hard time against this congress.
We could debate that for hours - but you wouldn't change my mind, nor I change yours. Fair enough - we both are who we are. Can live with that, though discussion is always fun! :)
ReplyDeleteThe president has exactly two jobs. Number one and most important, he is, if you like, the avatar of the entire country to the rest of the world.
Number two - he has the responsibility for ensuring that all laws are enforced equally. It's right there in the oath he takes. He's been ripping up the second duty like a cat that has just discovered a new roll of toilet paper. And that is down to him. Unlike semi sane countries, none of your departments of state have someone accountable in charge. They are sinecures for friends and pets (Yes, I know, both sides do it and it is a horrific weakness - do not even think of getting me started on Karl Rove or J W Snow! I'll burn your ears off or melt your screen.)
ACA is the law of the land. It passed both houses, was funded, properly by an act of the House, and signed into law. It is the President's duty to enforce that law - as written. There is no get out clause. It is his job. Not exactly doing it is he? There has been, what, 50 delays, exemptions and waivers this year alone? None of those are legal within the current system.
To be honest - executive orders shouldn't even exist now. They were a tool for a time when it could take weeks for Senate or Congress to convene - a useful tool in keeping the country running, but invalidated by that little icon somewhere on your phone that lets you dial in to a conversation from anywhere in the world.
Don't have answers. If I did, I'd be living fat somewhere in DC (though probably still debating!). Do have questions, though. Lots of them.
Anyway - we're chewing Ozy's bandwidth. Best to you, have a good Sunday and lets hit it again next week :)
We're each entitled to our own opinions, sure. But not to our own facts. And the fact remains that nothing Obama has done is outside the law. It is within the president's power to delay implementation of certain parts of the ACA and grant waivers the way he did. And we can debate whether executive orders are needed or not, but the fact remains that they are also within the president's powers.
ReplyDeleteSee, every time the president makes a move, the right wing media in this country coordinates with the Republicans to create talking points to explain why what he did was wrong. Never mind that their explanation this week completely contradicts their explanation from last week. The result is, there is a lot of misinformation, and a lot of people who watch that media believe that they have facts, when all they have is nonsense. Some people take it to extremes and use it all as an excuse to dehumanize the president and make believe that he is completely evil like some sort of cartoon villain, like Freepers do. I believe that this is the last desperate gasp of the Republican party before it goes the way of the Whigs. Hopefully, a more reasonable conservative party will arise from the ashes and we can have a reasonable opposition again. Heck, maybe some day in the future, I could even vote for a conservative president!
Not saying it's outside the law - but it is right on the edge of what is legal.
ReplyDeleteDo the smell test. You are an honest person with honestly held beliefs. If Bush had done this, would you accept it or would you complain about it? No need to answer, just think about it.
I could go for an actual conservative party. Never going to happen though. The right is fragmented. You have the so-cons, the fis-cons, the stormfronters and the classic cons.
Actually, I have been thinking about this issue as if Bush had been the one doing it. And honestly, I think delaying implementation of a law I disagreed with would be one of the best things he could do.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I don't get. Republicans first said if Obama would only use their idea, it would be great. Then when he did, it was his worst idea ever and made a show of trying to repeal it. Now that it's in effect and Obama delays parts of it and grants waivers, suddenly that's a bad thing, too! But they still want to repeal it, of course. I'm getting whiplash trying to follow all the different Republican positions on this law!
Meanwhile, if Bush had passed a law that Democrats had been advocating for more than a decade, we'd be ecstatic!
I agree with you about conservatives being too fractured, though. But I think that the so-cons and the stormfronters are on their way out as a major influence on the Republicans. And I think the fis-cons can get along with the classic cons, if they can just get rid of the idea that supply-side economics was anything but a disaster.
Sorry - I have to remember to check threads! Don't get the email notifications here!
ReplyDeleteI'm in the way of being a so-con. I believe in God, the Bible and Matthew 7.1. And the sooner they fuck off, the better. Ever seen Sufi's dance? They say one phrase - "The Sun is not God." They say that at sunrise. If you get the chance to see it, take it. If you get pulled into the circle - fucking take it!
I don't like the ACA. It is wrong, sticks an additional layer of ineptitude in the system, and it was sold on a lie. You are not going to convince me on that.
If you sign in with your Google account, you can check the little "Notify me" box and get e-mail notifications.
ReplyDeleteI think I've heard about Sufi's dance before. It sounds familiar. And I'm in total agreement with you about the so-cons.
If that's your opinion on the ACA, more power to you. I disagree, obviously, but it seems both of us came to our point of view rationally and based on our own experiences with our respective health care systems. I've had a lot of fun and learned a few things going back and forth with you, and I hope you had the same experience. It's rare you get a rational debate on the internet. :)
Seriously - if you get the chance, it will be the best missed night of your life, bar none. They can be a bit private and very clannish, so being invited to watch is a major bit of respect. Being pulled into the circle? There is nothing better at all. The joy stays with you for a life time!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed our discussion - though both of us may need to turn in our internet commenting card. Agreeing to disagree? That is revolting!