Racing Past the Constitution

[Bfgrn]

The most disturbing thing about this grab for power and the tyrannical assertion of government authority over private ownership is that as Will, states, it is becoming the norm and readily accepted by seeming dull witted partisans who are actually defending it!

WHO is defending it? Did you just fall off the back of a turnip truck?

 

[apple0154]

I'm going to logically assume that you have NEVER read the constitution, because it explicitly and extremely specifically provides limited power to regulate the economy to ONE SINGLE BRANCH of this government and it is NOT the president.

would you care to try to reprhrase your argument using actual facts before you?

Sure, I'll rephrase. I'll make it real simple. Bush was the head of the Republican Party and the Republican Party was in control of ALL the branches of government up until a few years ago but even if the Republican Party wasn't in full control as a competent leader Bush should have warned the people about what was happening.

Recall the speeches about the Iraq war and the line up of stooges echoing Bush's words? Where was Bush and his stooges when they realized the economy was headed for trouble?

He didn't have the Constitutional right to go to war but he talked Congress into giving him the power so he could go to war/use military force regarding Iraq. From outright lies about buying bomb supplies to bending and twisting the truth he got his point across. When it came to the economy he did nothing.

For someone to suggest that because the Constitution does not specifically say the President is responsible for the economy it's insanity to conclude the POTUS should sit back and do nothing knowing people are losing their life savings.

Whether he chose special addresses to the nation or stood on the White House lawn waving a sign he could have done something but he did nothing.

That is not a leader. That is an incompetent fool!

Everyone heading into retirement will never recoup their losses. He could have done something but he did nothing.

 

[Canceled2]

Sure, I'll rephrase. I'll make it real simple. Bush was the head of the Republican Party and the Republican Party was in control of ALL the branches of government up until a few years ago but even if the Republican Party wasn't in full control as a competent leader Bush should have warned the people about what was happening.

Recall the speeches about the Iraq war and the line up of stooges echoing Bush's words? Where was Bush and his stooges when they realized the economy was headed for trouble?

He didn't have the Constitutional right to go to war but he talked Congress into giving him the power so he could go to war/use military force regarding Iraq. From outright lies about buying bomb supplies to bending and twisting the truth he got his point across. When it came to the economy he did nothing.

For someone to suggest that because the Constitution does not specifically say the President is responsible for the economy it's insanity to conclude the POTUS should sit back and do nothing knowing people are losing their life savings.

Whether he chose special addresses to the nation or stood on the White House lawn waving a sign he could have done something but he did nothing.

That is not a leader. That is an incompetent fool!

Everyone heading into retirement will never recoup their losses. He could have done something but he did nothing.

He did not hold a gun to the heads of congress. They all thought Saddam had WMD too.

He went to congress on 3 occassions specific to the need of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This has been hashed over and over. Bottom line, we are now under the rule and policy of democrats. They are forcing us and our children and grandchildren to take on a debt that is outrageous.

 

[evince]

They will never face the facts that its their party that screwed everything up.

even with all the power they still twist adn crane to blame the democrats for everything.

Never should they be allowed in power again because they cant even control things with a complete majority. That is what they are saying.

The dems are soooo strong they can win even when the Rs have complete control.

Then fuck the R party they are too weak to be in office.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sure, I'll rephrase. I'll make it real simple. Bush was the head of the Republican Party and the Republican Party was in control of ALL the branches of government up until a few years ago but even if the Republican Party wasn't in full control as a competent leader Bush should have warned the people about what was happening.

Recall the speeches about the Iraq war and the line up of stooges echoing Bush's words? Where was Bush and his stooges when they realized the economy was headed for trouble?

He didn't have the Constitutional right to go to war but he talked Congress into giving him the power so he could go to war/use military force regarding Iraq. From outright lies about buying bomb supplies to bending and twisting the truth he got his point across. When it came to the economy he did nothing.

For someone to suggest that because the Constitution does not specifically say the President is responsible for the economy it's insanity to conclude the POTUS should sit back and do nothing knowing people are losing their life savings.

Whether he chose special addresses to the nation or stood on the White House lawn waving a sign he could have done something but he did nothing.

That is not a leader. That is an incompetent fool!

Everyone heading into retirement will never recoup their losses. He could have done something but he did nothing.

Wrong. The President's job is not to micromanage the economy.

 

[apple0154]

Rigggghhhhhtttt!! Do yourself a favor and look at the CBO report. They found that Obama's projected deficits are more than double what they would be if Obama had just stuck with the spending and tax proposals left by the Bush Administration.

The CBO also said that Obama's record deficits would mean a record national debt, one that would total 17 trillion. up from the durrent 6.7 trillion.

I am sure this doesn't bother you, but it sure as hell bothers me.

When the economy was in full swing universal medical and alternative energy and other initiatives should have been implemented. Way back in the early 90's Hillary tried to make changes to the medical but was stopped at every turn.

Even when the Repubs took over there was a surplus. What did Cheney say? The money was there and war was an option so he chose war.

No, it's not the best time to implement some of Obama's plans but the best time has passed and there is no better time coming in the foreseeable future.

From the time I first took an interest in politics I continually heard the government say they couldn't afford "this" or "that". I finally realized it had little to do with affordability and all to do with what they wanted to spend money on.

There was never money for social programs but always money for some pet
project. When it came time for governments to trim their budget welfare payments were reduced and unemployment insurance restrictions were increased. When the economy did recover, like during the 90s boom, what did the government offer the poor?

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy fan to realize the best way to prevent social programs from coming into existence is to get rid of surpluses. Add to that tax cuts and the government can say, "We can't afford that. We don't have the money."

Obama knows if he doesn't implement his plans now they'll never happen and nothing will get done, again. There will always be another war, another tax cut, another politician saying "We can't afford that". Obama is saying, "We've already waited too long. Find the money!"

(I feel better now.)

 

[Minister of Truth]

The proverbial "make it happen" command...

 

[TuTu Monroe]

They thought Saddam had WMD's in the 90's too.

What really makes me laugh is how they ignore the CBO's report that Obama's National debt is projected to be $17 trillion. Interest payments to be in the trillions.

He did not hold a gun to the heads of congress. They all thought Saddam had WMD too.

He went to congress on 3 occassions specific to the need of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This has been hashed over and over. Bottom line, we are now under the rule and policy of democrats. They are forcing us and our children and grandchildren to take on a debt that is outrageous.

 

[apple0154]

He did not hold a gun to the heads of congress. They all thought Saddam had WMD too.

He went to congress on 3 occasions specific to the need of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This has been hashed over and over. Bottom line, we are now under the rule and policy of democrats. They are forcing us and our children and grandchildren to take on a debt that is outrageous.

What do you think our children and grandchildren will value more; an extra $25.00 at the end of the week for a few good B-B-Q steaks or knowing they can visit a doctor if their children get sick without having to worry how much money they have in their pocket?

I agree it's of little benefit to keep rehashing the current debt and who is responsible. The point is there will never be a better time to implement Obama's plans.

Four years from now, even if none of Obama's plans are implemented, there will still be a sizable debt and people will be saying he should put his plans on hold, again.

As Obama has said, "We can't wait any longer."

This may not be the best time but there won't be a better time, for a long time.

 

[apple0154]

Wrong. The President's job is not to micromanage the economy.

Micromanage? Senators, Congress persons, (is it politically correct to say "congress person" or specify "congressman" and "congresswoman"?), oversight committee members.....they were passing the info along to Bush. Bush didn't have to "micromanage" anything. All he had to do was ask them for a solution and then go to the people/congress just like he did with the Iraq war.

The financial problem is a big mess. Big enough to get the President's attention and he did nothing.

It's absurd for anyone to interpret the Constitution in such a way that should the President see a big problem arising he is to do nothing if it's not specifically stated therein.

Whether or not he had any legal powers does not matter. He should have done more to bring it to the public's attention.

 

[apple0154]

The proverbial "make it happen" command...

Have you seen that black guy on SNL who says, "Just fix it!"?

He's good.

 

[apple0154]

They thought Saddam had WMD's in the 90's too.

What really makes me laugh is how they ignore the CBO's report that Obama's National debt is projected to be $17 trillion. Interest payments to be in the trillions.

Once people get used to certain social programs they will want to keep them. The biggest problem is getting the people to see the importance of them, making them a priority.

Surveys have been done in a number of Scandinavian countries, France, Canada, Great Britain....few if any of the people want social programs cut. Stated another way once people get used to them they want to keep them.

Social programs result in a better quality of life notwithstanding the additional taxes and Obama knows that.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

The social programs we already have, ie, Medicare and Medficaid are facing bankruptcy. More and more doctors are refusing to see them because of this and the huge amount of government interference telling them what to do and the paperwork involved.

Once people get used to certain social programs they will want to keep them. The biggest problem is getting the people to see the importance of them, making them a priority.

Surveys have been done in a number of Scandinavian countries, France, Canada, Great Britain....few if any of the people want social programs cut. Stated another way once people get used to them they want to keep them.

Social programs result in a better quality of life notwithstanding the additional taxes and Obama knows that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Once people get used to certain social programs they will want to keep them. The biggest problem is getting the people to see the importance of them, making them a priority.

Surveys have been done in a number of Scandinavian countries, France, Canada, Great Britain....few if any of the people want social programs cut. Stated another way once people get used to them they want to keep them.

Social programs result in a better quality of life notwithstanding the additional taxes and Obama knows that.

You mean like "Bread and Circus's"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What do you think our children and grandchildren will value more; an extra $25.00 at the end of the week for a few good B-B-Q steaks or knowing they can visit a doctor if their children get sick without having to worry how much money they have in their pocket?

I agree it's of little benefit to keep rehashing the current debt and who is responsible. The point is there will never be a better time to implement Obama's plans.

Four years from now, even if none of Obama's plans are implemented, there will still be a sizable debt and people will be saying he should put his plans on hold, again.

As Obama has said, "We can't wait any longer."

This may not be the best time but there won't be a better time, for a long time.

If I could, I would like to wrench the pop-poms out of your hands for a moment, and attempt to have a rational discussion. Nationalized health care? You should make sure thank a Republican for it! If they had stood up and raised t-total hell about this insanity, 10 years ago when it first reared it's ugly head, it would likely be a footnote by now. But because Dubya wanted to appear to be a good "compassionate conservative" he mirrored the idea then being promoted by Idiot Gore. The culmination was the Pill Bill, the single largest entitlement program since FDR. Because so-called "moderate" conservatives have made the mistake of finding agreement with pinheads over socialized medicine, we now have to deal with the Full Monty.

I realize, in your pinheaded states, it makes perfect sense to have government provide health care to every American at little or no cost. This is largely because your mental condition makes it impossible for you to understand capitalism and how it works in the free market. Here's the big deal with service industries like medicine, it all operates on demand. When you remove capitalist free-market influence, and mandate the government pay for the service instead, it can do nothing except increase demand. So, instead of it taking me 3 weeks to get an appointment with my cardiologist, it takes 6 months. It's about the demand. The supply side is not motivated to increase, what is the incentive for doctors? Does anyone know of a doctor who would rather be seeing patients 14 hrs a day, and not playing golf?

But whut about the poor sick people who can't afford to go to the doctor, and worry little johnny may die for lack of medical care?

Let me tell you something, I am named after my uncle, who died in 1933 at the age of 7. Basically, because the family was poor and didn't have access to medical care. But FDR fixed all that! We now have health clinics, funded by our tax dollars, operating in every major city. Hospitals are all bound by indigent care laws, they can't deny medical attention based on ability to pay. So, in a sense, we already do have "nationalized health care" in America.

Let's be honest, you want Socialized Health Care! Just like you want socialized everything, because you are enamored with Sweden and Scandinavia, and the ramblings of Karl Marx. The few isolated arctic countries you can cite as wonderful examples of socialism, have virtually no GDP or GNP, compared to the US. Every time Socialism has been attempted in a large diversely populated and industrialized nation, it has resulted in catastrophe. Socialist juggernauts eventually have to resort to aggression, to "feed" the beast, and in the past, it was the US who had to come in and save the world from it.

I can see how a pinhead could imagine the propaganda they spread being true. In their simple minds, they believe we'll save more money than we'll spend, because America will be healthier, you see... Jane and John Doe will be far more likely to go have that pain in their chest checked out, if government is paying for it... but what happens when they go to make the appointment, and they are told the wait for new patients is at least 6 months, and they must submit the proper form HC1030 and W-40. The pinheads don't have an answer for this, they just start squealing about how I am exaggerating, and it won't be this way in Utopia!

We can observe the socialist medicine examples of large populous nations like our own, and we can see a clear decline in medical care and quality of care. Most of the wealthier socialists come HERE for medical care, because of the limitations of their own system. Capitalist free-market solutions, have resulted in the US having the best medical care on the planet. Through our laws, we make this care available to every American regardless of race, religion, handicap, or ability to pay.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Dixie, if they can't understand this, then they are incapable of understanding anything outside of their own little world.

If I could, I would like to wrench the pop-poms out of your hands for a moment, and attempt to have a rational discussion. Nationalized health care? You should make sure thank a Republican for it! If they had stood up and raised t-total hell about this insanity, 10 years ago when it first reared it's ugly head, it would likely be a footnote by now. But because Dubya wanted to appear to be a good "compassionate conservative" he mirrored the idea then being promoted by Idiot Gore. The culmination was the Pill Bill, the single largest entitlement program since FDR. Because so-called "moderate" conservatives have made the mistake of finding agreement with pinheads over socialized medicine, we now have to deal with the Full Monty.

I realize, in your pinheaded states, it makes perfect sense to have government provide health care to every American at little or no cost. This is largely because your mental condition makes it impossible for you to understand capitalism and how it works in the free market. Here's the big deal with service industries like medicine, it all operates on demand. When you remove capitalist free-market influence, and mandate the government pay for the service instead, it can do nothing except increase demand. So, instead of it taking me 3 weeks to get an appointment with my cardiologist, it takes 6 months. It's about the demand. The supply side is not motivated to increase, what is the incentive for doctors? Does anyone know of a doctor who would rather be seeing patients 14 hrs a day, and not playing golf?

But whut about the poor sick people who can't afford to go to the doctor, and worry little johnny may die for lack of medical care?

Let me tell you something, I am named after my uncle, who died in 1933 at the age of 7. Basically, because the family was poor and didn't have access to medical care. But FDR fixed all that! We now have health clinics, funded by our tax dollars, operating in every major city. Hospitals are all bound by indigent care laws, they can't deny medical attention based on ability to pay. So, in a sense, we already do have "nationalized health care" in America.

Let's be honest, you want Socialized Health Care! Just like you want socialized everything, because you are enamored with Sweden and Scandinavia, and the ramblings of Karl Marx. The few isolated arctic countries you can cite as wonderful examples of socialism, have virtually no GDP or GNP, compared to the US. Every time Socialism has been attempted in a large diversely populated and industrialized nation, it has resulted in catastrophe. Socialist juggernauts eventually have to resort to aggression, to "feed" the beast, and in the past, it was the US who had to come in and save the world from it.

I can see how a pinhead could imagine the propaganda they spread being true. In their simple minds, they believe we'll save more money than we'll spend, because America will be healthier, you see... Jane and John Doe will be far more likely to go have that pain in their chest checked out, if government is paying for it... but what happens when they go to make the appointment, and they are told the wait for new patients is at least 6 months, and they must submit the proper form HC1030 and W-40. The pinheads don't have an answer for this, they just start squealing about how I am exaggerating, and it won't be this way in Utopia!

We can observe the socialist medicine examples of large populous nations like our own, and we can see a clear decline in medical care and quality of care. Most of the wealthier socialists come HERE for medical care, because of the limitations of their own system. Capitalist free-market solutions, have resulted in the US having the best medical care on the planet. Through our laws, we make this care available to every American regardless of race, religion, handicap, or ability to pay.

 

[apple0154]

The supply side is not motivated to increase, what is the incentive for doctors?

Doctors are paid for each patient they treat just like being paid for each widget you make. The more patients (widgets) the bigger the paycheck.

Hospitals are all bound by indigent care laws, they can't deny medical attention based on ability to pay.

If that's the case why do people pay for medical insurance? What difference does it make if a person has no insurance? Why are there statistics on people going bankrupt due to medical expenses? Or are you suggesting it's a decent system where people have to go bankrupt in order to get well?

Every time Socialism has been attempted in a large diversely populated and industrialized nation, it has resulted in catastrophe.

Why do people constantly confuse social initiatives with the political term "socialism"? They are not the same. The US government builds/pays for interstate highways which everyone uses. Is the US a socialist country?

but what happens when they go to make the appointment, and they are told the wait for new patients is at least 6 months, and they must submit the proper form HC1030 and W-40. The pinheads don't have an answer for this, they just start squealing about how I am exaggerating, and it won't be this way in Utopia!

There is an answer. What happens when you drive to work during rush hour? What happens when anything is shared? Of course there will be waits but long waits are rare.

There is nothing mysterious about running an efficient medical service. If, as you claim, hospitals are obliged to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay then what problem do have with a system where the costs are covered by taxes? Logic dictates it would be to the hospitals advantage to be paid for every patient they treat as would be the case with universal medicare.

If I could, I would like to wrench the pop-poms out of your hands for a moment, and attempt to have a rational discussion. Nationalized health care? You should make sure thank a Republican for it! If they had stood up and raised t-total hell about this insanity, 10 years ago when it first reared it's ugly head, it would likely be a footnote by now. But because Dubya wanted to appear to be a good "compassionate conservative" he mirrored the idea then being promoted by Idiot Gore. The culmination was the Pill Bill, the single largest entitlement program since FDR. Because so-called "moderate" conservatives have made the mistake of finding agreement with pinheads over socialized medicine, we now have to deal with the Full Monty.

I realize, in your pinheaded states, it makes perfect sense to have government provide health care to every American at little or no cost. This is largely because your mental condition makes it impossible for you to understand capitalism and how it works in the free market. Here's the big deal with service industries like medicine, it all operates on demand. When you remove capitalist free-market influence, and mandate the government pay for the service instead, it can do nothing except increase demand. So, instead of it taking me 3 weeks to get an appointment with my cardiologist, it takes 6 months. It's about the demand. The supply side is not motivated to increase, what is the incentive for doctors? Does anyone know of a doctor who would rather be seeing patients 14 hrs a day, and not playing golf?

But whut about the poor sick people who can't afford to go to the doctor, and worry little johnny may die for lack of medical care?

Let me tell you something, I am named after my uncle, who died in 1933 at the age of 7. Basically, because the family was poor and didn't have access to medical care. But FDR fixed all that! We now have health clinics, funded by our tax dollars, operating in every major city. Hospitals are all bound by indigent care laws, they can't deny medical attention based on ability to pay. So, in a sense, we already do have "nationalized health care" in America.

Let's be honest, you want Socialized Health Care! Just like you want socialized everything, because you are enamored with Sweden and Scandinavia, and the ramblings of Karl Marx. The few isolated arctic countries you can cite as wonderful examples of socialism, have virtually no GDP or GNP, compared to the US. Every time Socialism has been attempted in a large diversely populated and industrialized nation, it has resulted in catastrophe. Socialist juggernauts eventually have to resort to aggression, to "feed" the beast, and in the past, it was the US who had to come in and save the world from it.

I can see how a pinhead could imagine the propaganda they spread being true. In their simple minds, they believe we'll save more money than we'll spend, because America will be healthier, you see... Jane and John Doe will be far more likely to go have that pain in their chest checked out, if government is paying for it... but what happens when they go to make the appointment, and they are told the wait for new patients is at least 6 months, and they must submit the proper form HC1030 and W-40. The pinheads don't have an answer for this, they just start squealing about how I am exaggerating, and it won't be this way in Utopia!

We can observe the socialist medicine examples of large populous nations like our own, and we can see a clear decline in medical care and quality of care. Most of the wealthier socialists come HERE for medical care, because of the limitations of their own system. Capitalist free-market solutions, have resulted in the US having the best medical care on the planet. Through our laws, we make this care available to every American regardless of race, religion, handicap, or ability to pay.

 

[apple0154]

Dixie, if they can't understand this, then they are incapable of understanding anything outside of their own little world.

Talking about understanding things outside ones little world has anyone given any thought to the fact that there was a time when all the countries that now have universal medicare didn't have universal medicare?

Yes, every last one of them had a "pay or suffer" system before they changed it and almost all developed nations now have a universal system.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Talking about understanding things outside ones little world has anyone given any thought to the fact that there was a time when all the countries that now have universal medicare didn't have universal medicare?

Yes, every last one of them had a "pay or suffer" system before they changed it and almost all developed nations now have a universal system.

Gee, I wonder why?

Because they have people like you with too much time on your hands? Honestly, let the USA be the one bastion of freedom in the world. I encourage all leftists to travel back to the Old Country to run rampant with their fascism...

 

[apple0154]

Because they have people like you with too much time on your hands? Honestly, let the USA be the one bastion of freedom in the world. I encourage all leftists to travel back to the Old Country to run rampant with their fascism...

Wrong guess. The answer is because people advance. It tends to be the righties, the Conservatives, who have trouble progressing.

Change. It's long overdue.