Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40281 - 40300 of total 44844 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:18pm PT
I can see where politics - which is nothing more than the art of compromise among people who sometimes disagree, is a HORRIBLE THING - to the Tea Party. Their strategy of never compromising has won so many victories for them. It has given the country such a wonderful body of work and compelling results, to be proud of.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
Bob, I answered the question several hours ago, but now I'm confused. You ask if the Administration broke the law, but that I not be a lawyer. If this were a question in a deposition or trial, I would object that the question calls for a legal conclusion.

Yes. Issuing a regulation extending an explicit effective date by two years in the circumstance done here broke the law, and much more obviously than the EPA's action in Massachusetts v. EPA.

John
jammer

climber
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
Sketch, you have merely failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of how Obama "broke the law", "changing the bill". I was merely providing a more plausible explanation in the absence of yours. Here is a list of changes I found with a quick 30 sec. search:

http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27-significant-changes-already-have-been-made-to-obamacare/

All he appears to be doing is making some extensions in order to have a better implementation of the bill, and to better work out any bugs since the bill could not really be subject to any real discussion due to the fact that the GOP pledged to do nothing but obstruct it. The main delays seem to help smaller businesses, and hurt larger ones, perhaps slightly giving them an almost kind of even playing field for a few years. The result of this will be to "hurt" big business, so the GOP are crying like the little bitches they are. In turn, they have primarily been cutting funding for the bill, since that is all they were given the job of doing, and you can believe the thing got packed with plenty of fat just because of this. This fat is incidentally the main source of any GOP criticisms.

What apparently troubles them regarding Obama's "illegal changes" is the potential precedent this is apparently setting: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/employer-mandate-delay-obamacare/2014/02/14/id/552873

As usual though, this is a poorly formed argument from the GOP. The only precedent being set here IMO (I'm no lawyer, but have a good mind for the law) is that a President is allowed to delay the implementation of a law which they themselves largely crafted to help it be implemented more smoothly. That there is politics involved doesn't change anything IMO. This is politics, for f*#ks sake. Its not any different in spirit from the Supreme Court not requiring full implementation of Civil Rights laws in order to "allow society to catch up".

The GOP seem to argue that this will allow a president to do anything they want with any bill. Given this does not logically follow, it makes me wonder why they have chosen this of all possible lines of attack. My advice to America is as a direct result of this attack on Obama, don't vote GOP in the next election. They clearly plan on having their guy do whatever the f*#k he wants, and will pass an ungodly number of laws, just like the Bush administration did, despite being such proud obstructionists. All they will obstruct though is your freedom. Wake up.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
Tvash...you are a breath of fresh air here. You will also find that you are better off banging your head against the wall than trying to get a few of these folks to accept any thing factual.

Good luck on your journey.:-)
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:20pm PT
John..the EPA was 22 years.

Again...//The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.
//

Has the agency or Obama broken the law?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
Bob,

Don't discourage Tvash! He is, indeed, a very welcome addition to this campfire. Frankly, it's good to have you back in the fight as well, even though you are obviously on the wrong side. Unfortunately, I need to get back to work, but it's nice to see some real debate about someone other than ST members here.

John
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
This whole NSA abomination is not Obama's enchilada.
This extended program among many other invasive and abusive policies were the babys of the Bush brain trust. Obama inherited an ugly can of worms there.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:26pm PT
John..nice two-step. Hope you know that I admire the person you are, even if you are on the wrong side of history. :-)
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:32pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#348219
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
Bob, the scope of an agency's power (in effect, determining the authority on which Congress allowed the agency to act) differs from making a rule that explicitly contradicts a statute. The whole Code of Federal Regulations consists of various agencies making regulations on areas in which Congress authorized those agencies to act. In effect, the regulations flesh out the statutes.

For example, if the Tax Code says (as it does) that income from discharge of indebtedness is generally recognized in the year of discharge for computing taxable income, that law leaves lots of questions unanswered, such as:

What constitutes a discharge of indebtedness?

What accounting method(s) do we use to determine the amount of debt discharged?

What do we do if, say, a house worth $100,000 is sold at a foreclosure sale, thereby discharging $200,000 worth of debt?

Since the statute is silent, the IRS and the courts need to determine the answers to those questions, and, as not only recent, but not-so-recent decisions state, the courts will be very deferential to IRS determinations.

Contrast that with the situation in which the IRS issues a regulation saying that discharge of indebtedness will not be recognized as income. That regulation has the effect of repealing an explicit part of the statute, and is an illegal assertion of regulatory power.

Incidentally, Congress occasionally authorizes non-congressional amendment of statutes. In 1973, Congress authorized the formulation of federal rules of bankruptcy procedure. The statute provided that the rules, once finally approved by the SCOTUS, would control bankruptcy cases and, that when a rule conflicted with the existing bankruptcy act, the rule, not the act, would control.

The ACA contains no similar provision. That is why such a sweeping postponement is illegal.

John
jammer

climber
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
Gotta chime in with Bob on this one:

Not only was EPA 22 years, giving "at this time" a whole different meaning, it was also someone who did not write the law, obstructing the law. What Obama is doing is fundamentally different in that he is "obstructing" his own law, and one that the opposition party had little part in making Law. I would think the argument would have to come from some kind of argument of him overstepping the checks and balances of law, which is weak because of what Bob D posted earlier regarding the fact that he is not changing the law, just walking the lines in the definition of implementation.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:54pm PT
Tvash,, ANYONE that sifted through that quagmire of the NDAA 2013 knew what was coming, and knew well the extensive BUILD up from what the Bush era had done. Its all about absolute executive powers and has been bolstered time and time again throughout the administrations. But with prime evidence from Philo above, youll notice they excuse the current by pointing to the past.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:58pm PT
Tvash

climber
Seattle

Mar 7, 2014 - 01:14pm PT
Yes, Sketch - Obama shouldn't do what the public wants. It's not like he's our elected representative or anything.

And he definitely shouldn't flip flop! Responding to changing circumstances in a dynamic world lends an appearance of weakness - and we would never, under any circumstances, regardless of the human cost, want an appearance of weakness...to the minority of the population that chooses to see it that way.

Did "the public" demand all of the extensions? Apparently, the media missed it.

And about those "changing circumstances", other than Obama realizing his plan was going to piss off a lot of people (which was obvious back in 2009), what changing circumstances merited these extensions?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:15pm PT
jammer

climber

Mar 7, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
Sketch, you have merely failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of how Obama "broke the law", "changing the bill". I was merely providing a more plausible explanation in the absence of yours. Here is a list of changes I found with a quick 30 sec. search:

http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27-significant-changes-already-have-been-made-to-obamacare/

Thanks Jammer. Great site. Grace-Marie Turner is regularly trashing Obama on his handling of Obamacare.

By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 37 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 20 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 15 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court. But even this large number of changes hasnít stopped the cascade of failures we are seeing today in the implementation of the law.

The Obama administrationís announcement about the employer-mandate delay pushes one wave of bad news past the 2014 elections. It may be just a coincidence that the announcement is being made now, after the president met privately with Democratic members of Congress last week at their retreat. He no doubt got an earful about how frightened they are about facing the voters while trying to defend the unpopular law...

This delay is a tacit admission by the administration of the damage and distortions the law is causing in the employer community. The only solution to the lawís problems, of course, is permanent relief, through repeal.

More than 27 changes already have been made to ObamaCare, including at least 15 that have been signed into law by President Obama. A large number of changes have been made to a law that has not yet fully taken effect, but they havenít stopped the cascade of failures we are seeing today...

Clearly, this law is being dismantled even before it takes full effect because it is so fatally flawed.

I think we've hit the motherlode.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:16pm PT
This site is excellent.

http://www.galen.org/topic/obamacare/
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
Lemme ax you non-Democrats something.

Do any of you believe the GOP will take the presidency in 2016? This isn't a pre-gloat or loaded question. I'm genuinely curious and what like to know your thinking behind your answer.

Recognizing up front that prediction is a fools game. After all, I play it all the time.

And, jesus, OBAMA BROKE THE LAW BIG TIME WITH SURVEILLANCE. You've got a whale on the line there - the minnows are just for bait.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
Those are all opinion pieces by pundits, Sketch.

Looking for journalism or original studies, reports here. Objectivity and all that.

Sorry, but so far, you get a failing grade.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
Is the agency going to implement the law...yes.

That is not breaking the law.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 7, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
And to think, the Democrats shut down the government to prevent a delay of the ACA.

;>)

John

well JohnE, you are just a stunningly ignorant and highly partisan hack

how you could conclude what you said above is devoid of all logic and common sense

keep it up John, you used to have some respect and credibility here, not any more

pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 7, 2014 - 06:19pm PT
The ACA contains no similar provision. That is why such a sweeping postponement is illegal.

?Socialism?
Messages 40281 - 40300 of total 44844 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews