He just tells the Treasury Dept to PRINT, PRINT, PRINT
We now have a dysfunctional govt.
We have a national family that hates itself, and has 12 steps zealots and drug addicts seeing each other in a mirror.
A little pressure there for Boehner et al?
A little pressure for Obama?
Is anyone practical left in Washington?
They are one class. We, out here, are another. It couldn’t be more obvious. When the president, congress, the entire 3 branches ALL SUBMIT to ACA, we MIGHT have a start towards one class.
BOTH PARTIES.
It is absolutely clear that the founders did NOT intend for the govt of the USA to be PARTISAN (Federalist #10).
SCOTUS:
"The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive ‘cure’ for faction that the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy".
We are losing BOTH good govt and liberties (NSA) and the fact that both are evaporating simultaneously is NOT a coincidence
Congressmen and Senators who SERVE THE NATION would find a compromise and be PRACTICAL in doing so, and move ahead.
Soon enough the ACA will tell us all if it was a good idea. The people dumped the Volstead Act, an AMENDMENT. I suppose we can repeal this thing as well.
Don’t they all realize WE ALL REALIZE this is all action to see who blame lands on for VOTERS BEING HARMED?
27 comments:
One of the mightiest, and yet most grievous, things the American people have ever done was to undertake the Civil War.
That was done in the name of progress, and followed a period of unrelenting stalemate.
While it is true we don't seem to have many good people in Washington, I think you also have to remember, the Republican Party HAD to replace the Whig Party.
That's where we're at now.
We're at a time when a Party has to arise to replace the Republican Party.
That is nothing to blame Conservatives for, it is nothing to blame Ted Cruz for, it is nothing to blame the messenger for.
The honest messenger can tell us only one thing: There is no compromising with Leftists anymore:
They take over 20% of the economy in the name of affordability and then double the price.
They would print money and hand it to their cronies for energy businesses that produce no energy.
They would pull babies from wombs and murder them, and tax the American people to pay for their sin.
They would divide the people by race, feeding the animosities of each group, and then set them at each other like Pit Bulls in a gambling pit.
They would rip the careers out from underneath human beings, replace those careers with part time minimum wage work, and call it an economy.
They would take over our businesses and run them for us in the name of regulations and safety, and call us fascists for opposing them.
They would send our daughters to school and insist they must bare their vaginas in restrooms where boys are allowed to use their penises.
And this is a very partial list.
Where is the possible compromise, Epa?
Tell me.
Where?
Delay individual/small biz mandate in ACA by one year and FIX the fucking thing.
For instance ... if your spouse works for a company or institution which offers health care to you, BUT at group full market retail, you get NO subsidy towards anything. That is the vast majority of union members, BTW. THAT is why the unions choked on this thing (after they read it).
Just ONE of many examples.
Here is another ... DELAY implementation of the IT requirements for small medical practices, it has already driven many many many out of business ..which is why you see hospital corps becoming mammoth employers of salaried dr's.
Figure out a way to make it POSSIBLE for all hosptials to accept aca patients. Pull out a map. Everyone in NH north of plymouth, and on the NH coast HAS TO GO TO Portland, ME, Lebanon NH, or Manchester (nothing in Concord or Nashua). Now if your wife goes into labor and you live in Berlin NH and your are on ACA ....
Start right there.
Solve PRACTICAL problems and establish a process of compromise.
BTW I don't think ANY compromise on abortion is possible. I have always maintained that the inarguable facts of science tells us that abortion must be illegal after the age of the youngest fetus saved into life has been reached, with a few exceptions (and in this case rape would NOT be one since there is plenty of time for an abortion prior to this..but you have to be ready to COMPROMISE to make progress). As we progress in scientific achievement this age will become younger and younger. Note that as far as the age of the fetus is concerned this is NOT a political OR faith based argument. We would have a number.
Compromise is what got us here.
You're asking us to fix a broken tool with a broken tool.
That has been my argument all along about the Republican party.
It is time for them to make compromises on some things that I call "moral" issues.
Those issues do not cover for instance, illegals.
If they do not see the advantages or purpose of compromise, than it is time for them to go.
On the other hand, the Democrats are marching their way to being banned if they continue towards a socialist party.
On the subject of abortion, you know my history. I have always been squishy on the issue. But recents events have caused me to draw a line and say, this far and no further.
No more compromise, unless, as you say, it is in the in the interest of "progress" ...
and if that means a "War on Women" then so be it.
No abortion after six months, unless the mother's life in in grave danger.
No tax money to abortions, EVER.
No Doctor-assisted suicide.
No post-birth abortions, and anyone who suggests such a thing needs to be run out of the public arena.
It's enough.
Republicans need to compromise on moral issues, Christine? How?
If you're talking about illegals, you might have an argument.
If you're talking about abortion, transgender showers, and Green Energy scams, then you and I have no conversation.
It's the Democrats who have to give way. Because their way is INSANE.
If the majority of the nation votes in a socialist system via elected leaders, there will be no legal protection if the leaders refuse to enforce the constitution (like the 2008 Philadelphia voter intimidation case).
In that case, this is PRECISELY why there is a 2nd amendment. It is my OBSERVATION that sooner or later this will come into play OUT LOUD in words given the nature of the american citizens across the spectrum.
I would hate to see this result.
But as you know I have many times said that I see the USA in a state not like 1860 so much as the Roman Republic circa 133 BC as the Gracchi came to push their reforms and ended up ushering in spiraling violence which grew until 60 years later a succession of civil wars destroyed the republic.
BTW, WTF is a post birth abortion if not a tortuous manner of saying EXECUTION?
I said the illegals were not included in the "moral" issues. They should still be illegal.
As far as abortion is concerned, I am with Epa and you. Late term should only be allowed in the case of the woman's life.
What I mean about moral issues is anything that is banned only because it is a bible issue.
Gays are one of those issues. I am not opposed to gay marriage.
Sorry, but it has absolutely to affect on me whatsoever. It is a moral issue.
Abortion is another one.
Like I said, the Democrats are falling over the leftside clift.
The green issue is bullshit. I don't like co-ed showers anyways. But that whole issue will take a lot of work and a number of generations to be worked through.
Other than that, people need to get over their stereotypical attitudes about gays.
I compare it to the way people felt about blacks, way back when.
Gay men are not going to trying to seduce you or rape your children any more than a heterosexual man is.
Marijuana needs to be legal or else ban alcohol too.
No legalization of unnatural, man made drugs.
Call me a libertarian if you like although I have a feeling I don't agree with everything they do either.
Post birth abortion is an execution if the baby would be able to survive.
Epa,
Delay individual/small biz mandate in ACA by one year and FIX the fucking thing.
And watch the 2014 election go to the Democratic Party across the board?
I didn't come up with that caveat by listening to or reading anyone else's opinion on the matter. I have been talking about this at home for months upon months.
IN MY VIEW, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AND THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. OBAMA WINS -- NO MATTER WHAT!
The question becomes this: What is the best way to minimize the LONG-TERM DAMAGE of this administration which is absolutely determined to redistribute wealth worldwide.
Is there even a course of action which will prevent the further and more rapid slide downward of America? I'm referring not only to the economy.
AoW - Nothing will stop the very interesting moment coming on tuesday.
I recommend EVERYONE reading this get in to the ACA site, and set up a marketplace account. You don't have to pay or commit to anything, but it would be VERY interesting to know what levels of premium vs subsidy show up, IF IT'S FUNCTIONAL. What I expect is that paid for % of the premium will increase somewhat from what people are actually paying, but that subsidies will be amazing for many.
BREAKING THE TREASURY
As far as the process we are in, AoW, do you remember what I had to say about what Atlas Shrugged would REALLY look like in the real world?
When enough of the people who invent, finance, work, design, produce and distribute real things become discouraged we will simply see a mild dropoff, but it will herald the beginning of a gradually increasing and IRREVERSIBLE SLIDE, as those who would put in 60 hours a week for a professional effort, a professional result, and fiscal reward conclude they are SCHMUCKS, and simply do only what is necessary to keep their jobs.
Christien,
You wrote - Late term should only be allowed in the case of the woman's life.
I respond - I was the one who wrote that. Epa wrote that he opposes abortion after the time at which a baby has been taken from the womb and lived. In other words, his number is LOWER than mine. And, as he admits, his number will continue to get lower. Therefore, by typical assessments of these matters, Epa is MORE CONSERVATIVE than I am on abortion. We need to be clear about that.
You write - I said the illegals were not included in the "moral" issues. They should still be illegal.
I respond - I am actually more squishy on this issue than you are. Reason being, we have a surf class of illegals in this country, who are here because of a collusion between our government and our business class. We the people are responsible for the workings of our government, therefore, we are responsible for the immorality of having a surf class. We need to do something about it. We are, indeed, being scammed by our government, who are flouting the law in order to allow for this surf class. Indeed, we need to make a choice of whether we are to be a nation of laws, or a nation o whims.
Therefore, I seem to be more Liberal on this issue than you.
BTW, if the dems win in 2014, SO WHAT?
Think, unless the repubs can override a veto, they have NOTHING.
Therefore they at a minimum need close to 67 senators, and almost 300 reps. That's a gain of 20 in 33 elections in the senate, and a gain of over 30% in seats in the house.
As long as the Rove's are around to confound things, as long as the Christine Oddonnel's win the tea party voting primaries, what the republicans do is masturbation.
Pasto is correct, IMHO, about a new party. But before that can happen it will have to become obvious to ALL SORTS of minority voters (economic as well as race and other groupings) that the present manner of election winning ideas is a total failure. For all we know ... that IS the ACA.
" Epa is MORE CONSERVATIVE than I am on abortion. " I would call it more attuned to scientific result than faith or politics.
Whether that is more or less conservative or liberal will vary by subject, I would hope.
But if conservatism is rated by the fetal age at which abortion is illegal there is no doubt, I am more 'conservative'. If we can save a life but instead use 'choice' to ELIMINATE it, what is the name for that?
The reason I am going through these issues one by one and noting how I am more Liberal is this:
When I say there is no compromise, I believe it has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative anymore.
It has to do with a choice between sanity and insanity.
I think the rumor of a Grascian conspiracy is being proven before our eyes.
And I, for one, have had enough.
Post-birth abortion -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html
Pastorius,
Epa did say "No abortion after six months, unless the mother's life in in grave danger."
And yes, you are more liberal on the illegal issue than me.
This surf class has been allowed because people have ignored the laws on the books.
My question is, since when does illegal not mean illegal.
Just because we have become dependent on them, doesn't make it right.
Fact is, regardless of the argument, they are taking away jobs from American citizens.
Due to the state of the economy, something tells me a lot of US citizens would be more than happy to have those jobs.
If I have to pay an out of state premium tuition to go to school, then why are the illegals not paying an out of country tuition?
I continue to read that illegals are allowed to pay in state tuition.
Of course that doesn't even cover their being allowed to get food stamps and welfare.
These programs should be only for US citizens, many of which have spent their lives working and paying taxes, which pay for these programs.
Gay marriage?
None of my business.
School co-ed bathrooms?
Violate human nature for most humans
Transgender bathrooms in school?
USE THE TEACHER'S LOUNGE BATHROOM, then we'll see how teachers and admin want to deal with it.
Drugs?
Make them all legal, and tax the living hell out of them in increasing order of danger to life and society. Put heroin (or the like) users on an island. I'm sure there are cheap islands in the south atlantic, like South Georgia Island. Not likely but effective.
@Christine - Pasto mentioned 6 months not me ... this is what I said:
I have always maintained that the inarguable facts of science tells us that abortion must be illegal after the age of the youngest fetus saved into life has been reached, with a few exceptions (and in this case rape would NOT be one since there is plenty of time for an abortion prior to this..but you have to be ready to COMPROMISE to make progress). As we progress in scientific achievement this age will become younger and younger. Note that as far as the age of the fetus is concerned this is NOT a political OR faith based argument. We would have a number.
I want to be clear,
my point in noting that I am more Conservative or Liberal on any of these issues has nothing to do with a pride on being more Conservative or Liberal.
My point is, those distinctions don't matter much anymore to thoughtful people, and this blog is filled with truly thoughtful people.
We don't make our decisions based upon party affiliation. If we did, we wouldn't be IBA.
I do think we tend to agree on the issues I brought up.
I don't know why Gay marriage was brought into this. None of us have ever displayed any animosity to the notion of gay marriage.
My feelings are that if a fetus can survive, it should be allowed to.
If a fetus is "aborted" at an age it could survive, it would only be because the mother's life is in serious danger.
In that case, it would not be an abortion, it would be an induction.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should be making that decision very early on anyways.
Of course you have the situation with regards to children with very life threatening problems that are not picked up until late.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. Those cases need to be dealt with on a very individual bases.
I brought gay marriage up because it is one of the Republican parties serious moral bones of contention.
They have foam coming out of their mouth when they talk about this one.
You are correct Pastorius, we here at IBA do tend to make out decisions based on thought rather than party.
That is why I feel comfortable stating my beliefs. I know for the most part, you guys won't shred me into bits and pieces. :)
There are very few places where opinions straddle all 'party' ideological doctrines, or land outside any besides IBA and posters take the time to think about what that means.
When I think about how active I was in the democratic party in the 'old days' and how much the party has changed, and how much the republican definition of 'conservative' has changed since Barry Goldwater's final days (when he was trashing Jerry Falwell and the Robertson types, it's hard for me to gauge what we have.
Except to say that the drift is that one day SOONER THAN WE THINK we will be choosing between a Noam Chomsky and a Pat Robertson, and neither will be the lesser of the evils.
Yep.
And we don't want that to happen, and that's why we need a new party.
Pastorius
Post a Comment