you stay classy opponents of health care....you stay classy

[kevabuc]

Republican Eric Cantor's office was reportedly shot at:

http://www.sompost.com/?p=8448

That is even worse than what was being done which started the various threads.

just so your clear.....violence against an elected official or really anyone is out of bounds and completely improper. Whomever it was should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I would hope those on both sides could agree on this.

You got my vote on this one. However, I would support a one day, licensed open hunt of say, one day, on all elected officials. That would keep them honest and be legal all at the same time.

[alldaway]

I am sure the Obamacare supporters are just as vocal and just as violent....lets see however who gets demonized in the Media

Fox I am sure will be the only ones reporting a Republican getting bullied by constituants

What Obamacare supporters?  Conservatives/liberals are as equally jaded with this bill and only centrist pro Obama backers are in support of the bill.

Liberals are only upset because they don't understand that their precious Public Option is just around the corner.

It hasn't happened yet, so until then liberals aren't happy about it. 

[alldaway]

So having to step in with more control is not trying to generate more control? I think you just supported my theory quite well, but I could be mistaken.

Government stepping in doesn't always lead to having to use a heavy handed approach (eg control).  Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions.  Reality is they can change the bill such that it does not favor the health insurance providers without exerting "more" control, but that would defeat the argument you have presented.

It may not always mean it but based upon recent events the only thing not clear is your refusal to accept the possibility. Let's see, you have the Obama adminstration controlling and changing standing bancruptcy laws in the rights of bond holders of GM stock and subjugating them to the Union ownership, you have the Pay Czar contolling the compensation rates of publically traded companies, you have control being given to the Health and Human Secretary to oversee a board of 'experts" to determine insurance rates, you have the control of waterways and lakes being designed by the Ocean Policy Task Force and NOAA to restrict fishing guidelines, you have Executive Order 13528 to seize control of states' National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency" and you have the White House taking direct control over the Census from the Commerce dept.

You just have to excuse my cyancism towards being more inclined to agree with you, I do not have your faith in it being anythig but about ultimate control.

Please provide a link where I said it isn't possible? Furthermore who said it has to be purely faith?  Reality is this bill will be re-visited whether it is by the Democrats or Republicans before 2014.

As for your other comments that is purely subjective and more precisely government has always been about some "control" which is why the federal government is considered a central government.  How much control the federal government should exert has always been debated (eg. Federalist papers).  But all governments exert some control in some fashion to varying degrees.

But the control you are speaking of in this context is majority control which isn't anywhere true based on the facts, and in actuality the health insurance industry is in the driver seat of this epic bonanza (they would be dumb to screw this up).

"Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions", this statement lead me to believe you couldn't have the lack of clarity to reach said conclusion.

There was nothing subjective at all to any of my statements, these are the facts. 'Some" control does not include sidestepping standing bancruptcy laws, "some" control does not include establishing a Pay Czar to say what proper compensation is for public companies, "some" control does not include regulating private companies prices, "some" control does not include redfining the role of States National Guards in the event of a "national emergency", 'Some' control does not include the Fed redefining state control over territorial fishing regulations. If this is your idea of 'Some" control then we are more different then I previously thought.

I believe the Constitution clear outlines the "some" control the Fed is allowed to exercise and to think these situations follow those guidelines is a stretch.

You believe that government stepping in to correct the wrongs of this bill may not lead to heavy handed control, therefore you have faith because you cannot say that it won't.

That list isn't persuasive enough because the Bush Administration used National guard for wars overseas.  It was the Bush Adminstration that destroyed the CIA intelligence network and compromised agents in the field because they didn't like the conclusions the CIA found regarding WMD's in Iraq.  It was the Bush Administration that pushed the Patriot Act.  It was the Bush Administration that generated controversy with torture and GITMO.

At some point you have to take off the shades and realize all administrations push for some control.  Currently the Obama administration has a long way to go to catch up to the previous administration when it comes to exerting  that control.

[Skull and Bones]

"DROP DEAD": White Powder Package Sent to Rep. Weiner's Office 
Letter referenced the "health care" vote

By JONATHAN DIENST
Updated 5:11 PM EDT, Thu, Mar 25, 2010

Authorities are investigating a package with white powder and an angry letter that referenced the health care legislation that was sent to Congressman Weiner's Kew Gardens office today.

The letter said the Congressman should "drop dead" and complained about the historic health care legislation passed by Congress this week.

Weiner's fifth-floor office in a building on Kew Gardens Road was evacuated as were a doctor's office and a law office on the same floor. Nine people were inside Weiner's office at the time. The workers are being decontaminated as a precaution.
In a statement, Weiner said his prime concern is the safety of his staff and others in the area.

"Earlier today an envelope containing white powder and a threatening letter was delivered to my community office in Kew Gardens. The NYPD was immediately alerted and have responded appropriately by sending a Haz-Mat team," the statement read. "My first priority is the safety of my staff and neighbors, and the authorities are currently taking steps to investigate and resolve the situation."

The NYPD, the FBI and other emergency management officials are at the scene as a precaution, spokesmen for the agencies say. Weiner's Kew Gardens office will be closed pending the completion of the investigation.
As is routine, preliminary field testing is underway to determine whether the substance is in any way hazardous. Then it will be sent to a lab for further detailed testing as a precaution. Most often, officials say, these letters are hoaxes.

The package sent to Weiner's office may be the latest in a series of threats directed against Democratic Congress members who voted to overhaul the U.S. health care system.

At least four Democratic offices in New York, Arizona and Kansas were struck and at least 10 members of Congress have reported some sort of threats, including obscenity-laced phone messages, congressional leaders have said. No arrests have been reported.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday condemned vandalism and threats against members of Congress who voted to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Republicans joined in, telling people to calm down and saying they too were being targeted in an increasingly venomous political atmosphere.

"I don't want this to be a distraction" to the work of Congress, Pelosi said. But she also asserted that such violence and threats of reprisal have "no place in a civil debate in our country" and must be rejected.

Her sentiments were echoed minutes later by House Republican leader John Boehner, who said that while many are angry over the health care measure, "threats and violence should not be part of a political debate."

The House's No. 3 Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said at a brief news conference Thursday that someone fired a bullet through a window of his campaign office in Richmond this week and he has received threatening e-mails.
Responding to Democrats who have accused Republicans of being too slow to condemn the attacks against lawmakers, he stressed that security threats are not a partisan issue. "To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible," he said.

The actions against Democrats have included racial slurs thrown at black lawmakers, e-mail and phone death threats and bricks thrown through regional office windows.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and chairwoman of an influential House committee, said someone had left her a voice mail that used the word "snipers."

On the Republican side, the office of Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio released a tape of a profanity-laced phone message in which the caller said Republicans were racists and, referring to an accident two years ago when Schmidt was hit by a car while jogging, said, "you should have broke your back, b... ."
Senate Sergeant at Arms Terry Gainer told The Associated Press Thursday that there was "no evidence that annoying, harassing or threatening telephone calls or emails are coordinated. Regrettably though, bloggers and twitters seem to feed off each other, leaving little room for creativity."

At the news conference, Pelosi said it is "important for us to be able to express ourselves freely, not to diminish that in any way, but also to hit a standard that says some of the actions ... must be rejected."

But the California Democrat also said she did not "subscribe to the theory that these acts sprang from the comments of my colleagues."

The vandalism and threats surprised a researcher at a think tank that monitors extremist groups.
"I think it is astounding that we are seeing this wave of vigilantism," said Mark Potok of the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/...e-89136827.html

--------------------

[alldaway]

The day the Patriot Act passed was the day the US Constitution died from my perspective.  This healthcare bill is bad, but not the epic fail that the Patriot Act has brought to our nation.

[dbucfan]

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Check out the voting ADW - you will note the past president is not listed.  And the vote was overwhelming (and yes, bipartisan)

[cyberdude557]

The day the Patriot Act passed was the day the US Constitution died from my perspective. This healthcare bill is bad, but not the epic fail that the Patriot Act has brought to our nation.

The Patriot Act doesnt force me to buy a service or force the government to take over 1/6th of the American economy.

[Biggs3535]

I am sure the Obamacare supporters are just as vocal and just as violent....lets see however who gets demonized in the Media

Fox I am sure will be the only ones reporting a Republican getting bullied by constituants

What Obamacare supporters?  Conservatives/liberals are as equally jaded with this bill and only centrist pro Obama backers are in support of the bill.

Liberals are only upset because they don't understand that their precious Public Option is just around the corner.

It hasn't happened yet, so until then liberals aren't happy about it.  

Then George Soros will be upset that his massive wealth isn't reaching his target audience through the Tides Foundation:

[kevabuc]

So having to step in with more control is not trying to generate more control? I think you just supported my theory quite well, but I could be mistaken.

Government stepping in doesn't always lead to having to use a heavy handed approach (eg control).  Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions.  Reality is they can change the bill such that it does not favor the health insurance providers without exerting "more" control, but that would defeat the argument you have presented.

It may not always mean it but based upon recent events the only thing not clear is your refusal to accept the possibility. Let's see, you have the Obama adminstration controlling and changing standing bancruptcy laws in the rights of bond holders of GM stock and subjugating them to the Union ownership, you have the Pay Czar contolling the compensation rates of publically traded companies, you have control being given to the Health and Human Secretary to oversee a board of 'experts" to determine insurance rates, you have the control of waterways and lakes being designed by the Ocean Policy Task Force and NOAA to restrict fishing guidelines, you have Executive Order 13528 to seize control of states' National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency" and you have the White House taking direct control over the Census from the Commerce dept.

You just have to excuse my cyancism towards being more inclined to agree with you, I do not have your faith in it being anythig but about ultimate control.

Please provide a link where I said it isn't possible? Furthermore who said it has to be purely faith?  Reality is this bill will be re-visited whether it is by the Democrats or Republicans before 2014.

As for your other comments that is purely subjective and more precisely government has always been about some "control" which is why the federal government is considered a central government.  How much control the federal government should exert has always been debated (eg. Federalist papers).  But all governments exert some control in some fashion to varying degrees.

But the control you are speaking of in this context is majority control which isn't anywhere true based on the facts, and in actuality the health insurance industry is in the driver seat of this epic bonanza (they would be dumb to screw this up).

"Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions", this statement lead me to believe you couldn't have the lack of clarity to reach said conclusion.

There was nothing subjective at all to any of my statements, these are the facts. 'Some" control does not include sidestepping standing bancruptcy laws, "some" control does not include establishing a Pay Czar to say what proper compensation is for public companies, "some" control does not include regulating private companies prices, "some" control does not include redfining the role of States National Guards in the event of a "national emergency", 'Some' control does not include the Fed redefining state control over territorial fishing regulations. If this is your idea of 'Some" control then we are more different then I previously thought.

I believe the Constitution clear outlines the "some" control the Fed is allowed to exercise and to think these situations follow those guidelines is a stretch.

You believe that government stepping in to correct the wrongs of this bill may not lead to heavy handed control, therefore you have faith because you cannot say that it won't.

That list isn't persuasive enough because the Bush Administration used National guard for wars overseas.  It was the Bush Adminstration that destroyed the CIA intelligence network and compromised agents in the field because they didn't like the conclusions the CIA found regarding WMD's in Iraq.  It was the Bush Administration that pushed the Patriot Act.  It was the Bush Administration that generated controversy with torture and GITMO.

At some point you have to take off the shades and realize all administrations push for some control.  Currently the Obama administration has a long way to go to catch up to the previous administration when it comes to exerting  that control.

The Bush Admistration used the Guard byway of the consent of the State Govenors and territorial adjutant generals the way it was supposed to work, Obama wants to supersede that legal method. The rest of your post is confined to issues of National Security and well within the scope of what the executive branch should be dealing with and all are issues that if I used you would say were subjective.

I understand quite well that all admistrations do in fact seek control, it is the areas of control that Obama is expanding into I find objectionable.

And if you want ot keep debating fine, however, you can refrain from the slights and snide statements such as taking off the glasses and such that frequent your posts. It does nothing to suppport your arguments and it is a matter of disrespect that I do not use when responding to you. There's no need for it, I respect your opinions and welcome the debate. Just saying.

[alldaway]

The day the Patriot Act passed was the day the US Constitution died from my perspective. This healthcare bill is bad, but not the epic fail that the Patriot Act has brought to our nation.

The Patriot Act doesnt force me to buy a service or force the government to take over 1/6th of the American economy.

Big deal losing money isn't on the same level as losing freedom.  You are quick to label people communists and yet the freedom you lost the day the Patriot Act passed is lost on you.

So having to step in with more control is not trying to generate more control? I think you just supported my theory quite well, but I could be mistaken.

Government stepping in doesn't always lead to having to use a heavy handed approach (eg control).  Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions.  Reality is they can change the bill such that it does not favor the health insurance providers without exerting "more" control, but that would defeat the argument you have presented.

It may not always mean it but based upon recent events the only thing not clear is your refusal to accept the possibility. Let's see, you have the Obama adminstration controlling and changing standing bancruptcy laws in the rights of bond holders of GM stock and subjugating them to the Union ownership, you have the Pay Czar contolling the compensation rates of publically traded companies, you have control being given to the Health and Human Secretary to oversee a board of 'experts" to determine insurance rates, you have the control of waterways and lakes being designed by the Ocean Policy Task Force and NOAA to restrict fishing guidelines, you have Executive Order 13528 to seize control of states' National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency" and you have the White House taking direct control over the Census from the Commerce dept.

You just have to excuse my cyancism towards being more inclined to agree with you, I do not have your faith in it being anythig but about ultimate control.

Please provide a link where I said it isn't possible? Furthermore who said it has to be purely faith?  Reality is this bill will be re-visited whether it is by the Democrats or Republicans before 2014.

As for your other comments that is purely subjective and more precisely government has always been about some "control" which is why the federal government is considered a central government.  How much control the federal government should exert has always been debated (eg. Federalist papers).  But all governments exert some control in some fashion to varying degrees.

But the control you are speaking of in this context is majority control which isn't anywhere true based on the facts, and in actuality the health insurance industry is in the driver seat of this epic bonanza (they would be dumb to screw this up).

"Only those lacking clear thought would reach such surface conclusions", this statement lead me to believe you couldn't have the lack of clarity to reach said conclusion.

There was nothing subjective at all to any of my statements, these are the facts. 'Some" control does not include sidestepping standing bancruptcy laws, "some" control does not include establishing a Pay Czar to say what proper compensation is for public companies, "some" control does not include regulating private companies prices, "some" control does not include redfining the role of States National Guards in the event of a "national emergency", 'Some' control does not include the Fed redefining state control over territorial fishing regulations. If this is your idea of 'Some" control then we are more different then I previously thought.

I believe the Constitution clear outlines the "some" control the Fed is allowed to exercise and to think these situations follow those guidelines is a stretch.

You believe that government stepping in to correct the wrongs of this bill may not lead to heavy handed control, therefore you have faith because you cannot say that it won't.

That list isn't persuasive enough because the Bush Administration used National guard for wars overseas.  It was the Bush Adminstration that destroyed the CIA intelligence network and compromised agents in the field because they didn't like the conclusions the CIA found regarding WMD's in Iraq.  It was the Bush Administration that pushed the Patriot Act.  It was the Bush Administration that generated controversy with torture and GITMO.

At some point you have to take off the shades and realize all administrations push for some control.  Currently the Obama administration has a long way to go to catch up to the previous administration when it comes to exerting  that control.

The Bush Admistration used the Guard byway of the consent of the State Govenors and territorial adjutant generals the way it was supposed to work, Obama wants to supersede that legal method. The rest of your post is confined to issues of National Security and well within the scope of what the executive branch should be dealing with and all are issues that if I used you would say were subjective.

I understand quite well that all admistrations do in fact seek control, it is the areas of control that Obama is expanding into I find objectionable.

And if you want ot keep debating fine, however, you can refrain from the slights and snide statements such as taking off the glasses and such that frequent your posts. It does nothing to suppport your arguments and it is a matter of disrespect that I do not use when responding to you. There's no need for it, I respect your opinions and welcome the debate. Just saying.

If by consent you mean forced because we were fighting a war on terror regardless of "cost".   An executive branch that over steps its authority shouldn't be defended and that is exactly what the previous administration did.  They are arguably worse than the Carter adminstration for this reason.

[Biggs3535]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7418886

[dbucfan]

Geez, how odd.

[dbucfan]

Here's something equally odd- the cost of the Healthcare Bill - or rather its' savings - well they aren't saving according to the NYTimes.  Now that's some reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

I guess I missed the prior thread from friends here on the board pointing this one out.


The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Published: March 20, 2010
Arlington, Va.

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs � health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits � would actually improve the nation�s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office�s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation�s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations� actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans � which obviously has nothing to do with health care � is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit � the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses � is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America�s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

[rgator13]

Isnt it also Ironic that the "tin hat wearing" Glenn Beck also said this stuff directly above me would be in this bill and people thought he was a fearmongering fool....hmmmm who looks like the fool now?





Interesting enough people will still below me, despite his claims now being backed up by the "liberal"NY Times, call Glenn Beck a fearmonger

[dbucfan]

Imagine - the United States Congress and the Executive Branch of the United States misleading the citizenry - again.