The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a watershed piece of legislation in American history. Based on the 15th Amendment, it outlawed discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious and gender criteria.
You probably don’t realize it, but it’s likely that you encounter aspects of the Civil Rights Act on a regular basis. When you apply for a job, a mortgage, join a club, stay in a hotel room, or buy something online you are often presented with a page of text with a bunch of legalese that you probably don’t read. That text usually says something about non-discrimination, terms and conditions and various other policies. All of that appears because non-discrimination is the law of the land. That means that if a business or group discriminates based on one of those factors, they could be prosecuted by the government. That text you don’t read basically acknowledges as much.
Although Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, it does not enforce it. That is the President’s job. If someone breaks the rules, the Justice Department or the US Civil Rights Commission will most likely be the one that sues them, not some House or Senate committee. It’s the president’s job to execute the laws. That’s because Article II Section 3 states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
But what if he didn’t want to do it? Let’s say a president was elected and decided that 50 years was enough and that we didn’t need to focus on discrimination anymore. There would be howls from virtually every quarter of the country. “That’s unconstitutional!”
And of course those howling would be right. Today however, to very few howls, we have the exact same thing, only instead of the Civil Rights Act it’s The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
President Obama has unilaterally decided that large swaths of his signature legislation will simply not be implemented as the law requires. “But he has good reason though…” one might say. Or “He has to, it’s not quite ready”. One could come up with any one of a dozen good reasons for the president to delay the employer mandate or the out-of-pockets caps. It is, after all, the single worst piece of legislation ever to be signed into law in the United States.
The problem however, is that the legislation does not give the President that option. The law doesn’t say the employer mandate, which requires all businesses with over 50 employees to provide health insurance to their staffs or face fines up to $3,000 per employee, can be implemented when the market is ready. It says they will begin in 2014. The law doesn’t say that the cost caps, which limit annual deductibles to $2,000 per individual and $4,000 per family, can go into place when the President is ready to implement them. It says they go into effect in 2014.
But that has not stopped President Obama from delaying both and other aspects of that highly dysfunctional Obamacare, including exempting Congress and its staff from the law… something else the President does not have the power to do.
“So what!” one might say. “The president is saving us from having to operate under a system that is unworkable for another year until he can fix it.” As reasonable as that might sound at first blush, that is a recipe for tyranny. How? Simple. The United Sates is a nation of laws. Congress passes bills (ostensibly) based on its power afforded under the Constitution and the president either signs them into law or vetoes them. Once they are laws, the president has the responsibility to enforce them.
He does not have the right to enforce only those he likes. His role is not to decide what laws – or what aspects of laws – he is willing to enforce. His job is to enforce the laws as they are written. If he does not like pending legislation he has the option of seeking to influence is writing in Congress before it reaches his desk. Once signed, or for a law signed by a predecessor, a president has the option of seeking to change the law via congressional action which will result in a new law replacing or amending the current law.
What he does not have the right to do is unilaterally change the law. If he did, what would stop a president from simply stopping to enforce Civil Rights Act against employers who only discriminate against blacks? What would stop a president from delaying Social Security checks because the IRS hasn’t collected enough in taxes this year? What would stop the president from enforcing the FDA’s testing regime on drug manufacturers? What would stop the president from giving a $1 million tax break to anyone who bundled $500,000 or more to his campaign? The answer to all of these is the same: Nothing.
If the president can pick and choose the laws he will enforce, then the Constitution is simply dead. If he can ignore the responsibilities it demands of him then so too can he ignore the limitations it puts on him. Habeas Corpus? Gone. Term limits? Gone. Freedom of Speech? Gone. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Gone. Unrestrained absolute power? Hello!
Obamacare is by any measure, bad legislation. Many people were saying that from the start, long before Nancy Pelosi famously said: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” Nonetheless the monstrosity that is Obamacare passed into law and the Supreme Court contorted common sense to declare it Constitutional. Nonetheless, in order to protect those responsible for this abomination from voter’s wrath the President has chosen to unlawfully delay some of the most onerous parts of the law. From a political perspective that makes perfect sense. The problem is, it’s simply unlawful. If Barack Obama gets away with this, the presidency is no longer simply first among equals in the Republic formed by our Constitution. It will have literally become a dictatorship. One man choosing what the laws are and to whom they apply. Now that is what I call “Fundamentally transforming the United States”… and not, I would suggest, in a good way.
See author page
Excellent piece, Vince. Well reasoned and a succinct description of the tyrant currently befouling the oval office. Obama’s arrogance is clear for all to see as he denigrates the Constitution, but it requires one to engage in honest analysis of his actions without accepting his hyperemotional grandstanding and obfuscation of his true motives.
But who’s going to do anything about this?
We’ve been paying into ObamaCare every year since it became law.
Only now that it is time for the gov’t to keep it’s part of the bargain is it too onerous to enforce.
And only the parts Obama wants to lag for personal political reasons.
What about all the rest of ObamaCare that is not working?
The CRS, Congressional Research Service, Congress’ non-partisan in-house think tank, compiled 82 deadlines that the Affordable Care Act mandates upon the first three years of its own implementation. Remarkably, it turns out that the White House has missed half of the deadlines legally required by the ACA. And some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/18/unpublished-crs-memo-obama-administration-has-missed-half-of-obamacares-legally-imposed-implementation-deadlines/
Point is, ObamaCare should be implemented as written so that its glaring flaws will be exposed more fully.
Only then will a groundswell to undo it completely be able to get a boost.
What Obama is doing is covering his signature legislation’s flaws up by dithering.
He therefore is able to keep the outrage down for longer than should be possible.
A powerful piece of writing, Vince! This one needs to make the rounds.
The Imperial Presidency is poised to takeover and we are watching it unfold.
@Nan G: Here’s the frightening question: what does Obama hope to gain by avoiding implimentation in order to protect upcoming elections, since elections are ALWAYS upcoming? What, that is, unless the next election will be somehow…. different.
Morsi did the same thing in Egypt – got elected, then changed the country’s constitution to a Sharia dictatorship. He wasn’t very subtle and Obama refused to acknowledge or denounce Morsi’s actions. The military removed Morsi.
The difference here – no one in elected office or other power position is acknowledging the stomping on the Constitution by this Admin.
@DrJohn:
Short answer:
No one.
I’m going to differ and say that’s not quite accurate there, James. The Egyptians voted themselves into a Shariah Constitution, as Walid Shoebat points out. From his his linked article, it was by no small measure.
Ergo, the Egyptians got exactly what they wanted and voted for. We’ve suspected for some time that many Muslim nations prefer Shariah in their government, and yet we appear surprised every time they express that freely. Why is that?
I’m not a fan of Morsi, and obviously Egyptians have their own version of low info voters. But what people miss is the dance for power between Morsi’s MB and AQ/afflialiate hardliners… and the even larger dance of power between the Egyptian military, the admin and their judiciary.
INRE MB vs AQ Islamists – after the August Egypt-Israeli border attack on the Egyptian military by Sinai militants (heavy AQ/affiliate territory), Morsi fired some key personnel – one of them being the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces – and started launching air strikes on the Sinai Peninsula against these Islamists. It was also in the Sinai that Salafist Islamists stormed the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty negotiations. Peacekeeper troops opened fire, killing some of the Salafist protesters.
The point to the above is that the MB and Islamist hardliners inhabiting the Sinai were in conflict over power. When Morsi felt he saw incompetence while trying to hold on to his own MB power position, he removed staffers. And it was this penchant for firing people that led to his demise. Specifically, the general counsel, Mahmoud, became the catalyst.
Mahmoud was charged with prosecuting Mubarak allies with the killing of a couple dozen protesters during the uprising #1. (a couple dozen lives lost seems paltry compared to what is going on now, eh?). Mahmoud failed to get a single conviction. So Morsi wanted to fire him.
The general prosecutor’s position is not one that can be ousted by the Egyptian President, and Mahmoud wouldn’t go quietly or willingly. This started a blow back with the protests again, with claims that the MB was trying to take over the country. It also put Morsi on the path to an irreconcilable battle with the Egyptian judiciaries.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Council of Egypt’s Armed Forces and Morsi were still at each others throats over the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. This was a Mubarak era structure, and the Egyptian high court said they needed time to issue findings on it’s constitutionality… and demanded that they be the ones to draft the judiciary section in the final Constitution. They threatened striking, holding up the works. That’s when Morsi said ta hell with it all, appointed a new general counsel and declared it would be a 4 year appointed office, and kept the Assembly from dissolution so they could continue work on the Constitution.
This really PO’ed the judges and they went on strike. The Constitution ended up being cobbled together with 26 absentee members since they quit in a huff. Everything went downhill from there… and here Egypt is today.
The moral of the story? Morsi didn’t start out claiming absolute powers, and actually commenced battling his peer Islamists. But then he got fed up with a hodge podge combo of Mubarak era and post revolution structure that left the Military Council, the Judiciary and the government/Assembly at each other’s throats, each making their own demands and power plays. Morsi, like Obama, found himself with a “do nothing” structure. But in his defense, it was a morphing critter, under renovation.
Obama also finds himself with a “do nothing” government, and attempts to do the same. But while our three branches are at each others throats constantly (not to mention internal Congressional battles), it’s nothing at the scale of the doin’s in Egypt.
The difference is, unlike Egypt, our three branches have long held the power of balance and checks. They just don’t use them for fear of political repercussion because politicians are inherently self centered. But if you want to complain, the most powerful branch of the people is Congress.. and that’s where it should start. This fixation on the Executive Branch – a limited in power entity save for what the Legislative Branch willingly gives them – has always been misdirected IMHO. A POTUS goes away… Congress is forever.
We have the tools at our disposal. Congress gives the Executive Branch agency regulatory powers. They can also take them away. What we have is elected ones, unwilling to pick up those tools.
Vince, with all due respect, and one who vehemently opposes O’healthcare as much as the next guy, the delay in implementing legislation, and selective enforcement of federal laws, is a tradition that long predates the current admin. Immigration and the mandated change out of the NTSC format are only two such examples of selective enforcement and delay.
As I said above, Congress grants the POTUS and Executive Branch powers, and they can not only take them away, but can choose to act on what they view as in appropriate enforcement or regulation. They don’t. I suspect it will continue thru POTUS to POTUS, and the complaints from the voters will continue.
And no.. Congress and staff are not *exempt* from O’healthcare. Seems that’s going to be one of the mythical lies that will have legs, right up there with birthers and truthers.
@James Raider:
When the majority on SCOTUS state a law is unconstitutional as written and then votes to uphold it anyway, we no longer have a system of checks and balances.
“Duly elected?”
Neither Morsi NOR the Sharia Constitution voting were without (1)bribing and (2)intimidating voters and (3)rigging ballots.
(1)Free meat, subsidized vegetables, and sweets for children are the Muslim Brotherhood’s bribes for votes from Egypt’s poor.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has used welfare support for more than three decades as a means of recruiting new supporters.
http://blogs.cfr.org/husain/2011/11/09/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-bribing-voters-in-egypt/
(2)A campaign of intimidation by Islamists left most Christians in this southern Egyptian province too afraid to participate in last week’s referendum on an Islamist-drafted constitution they deeply oppose, residents say.
A week before the vote, some 50,000 Islamists marched through the provincial capital, Assiut, chanting that Egypt will be “Islamic, Islamic, despite the Christians.” At their head rode several bearded men on horseback with swords.
They made sure to go through mainly Christian districts of the city, where residents, fearing attacks, shuttered down their stores and stayed in their homes.
The day of the voting itself on Saturday, Christian voting was minimal — as low as seven percent in some areas, according to church officials. Some of those who did try to head to polling stations in some villages were pelted by stones, forcing them to turn back without casting ballots, Christian activists and residents told The Associated Press this week.
http://therightscoop.com/egypt-islamists-intimidated-christians-from-voting-against-the-referendum/
(3)Egypt’s official news agency says an election commission will look into complaints by presidential candidate Ahmed Shafiq alleging irregularities and forgery in last year’s vote, which he narrowly lost.
Shafiq had complained that some ballots were forged, invisible ink was used during voting, and some Christians were prevented from casting ballots. He said the incidents favored Morsi.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/22/egypt-election-commission-to-look-into-fraud-complaints-filed-by-candidate-who/#ixzz2cXRQ0X9J
@MataHarley: Well, I guess we could play semantics. While they may not be exempted from Obamacare literally, they have been given special privileges to deal with it’s most onerous aspects. Or at least that’s what the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Reuters, The National Review and others seem to be suggesting.
@MataHarley: Well, I guess we could play semantics. While they may not be exempted from Obamacare literally, they have been given special privileges to deal with it’s most onerous aspects. Or at least that’s what the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Reuters, The National Review and others seem to be suggesting. (I tried to post this with links five times but each time the system said I was posting spam!!!)
@Nan G, since you seem to have such strong feelings for another nation’s elections that crying “foul” when they don’t turn out the way you expected, you might want to read the specifics of supervision, security etal that was done specifically for the Constitutional referendum.
Voter turn out didn’t differ much from US historic elections, with about 30-33% of the voters turning out. You suggest that this is because:
1: bribery – the MB dared to entice voters with welfare programs, as they’ve done for years? Well hey, they – much like Hamas, or even the US progressive pols – interface with their peers like this. Some political parties – western or Muslim – advocate for more socialist welfare. That’s a choice their voters will make for their future. None of our business. Not a foul by any means. It’s called a choice, even if a foolhardy one for fiscal reasons.
2: initimidation of Christians – Well, that’s rather moot since the Christian population of Egypt represents about 1% of the *total* population, which doesn’t necessarily reflect the voter eligible percentile. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you may have thrown the Coptics in to that mix without saying so – tho they are different than Christians. They make up an additional 9% of the total population which, again, doesn’t necessarily reflect their voter percentage.
My suggestion is that even if *every* Christian and Coptic turned out for the Constitutional referendum, the result would end up the same – yes to Shariah. They are overpowered by sheer numbers.
3: a complaint by a candidate is resulting in an investigation by an election commission – Let’s bypass for a minute that the only election I discussed above was the Shariah Constitution referendum, and not the general elections prior to that. But dealing with your response, what you say shows me that an election that you want to label invalid (sorta a lot of chutzpah on your part, don’t you think? :0) apparently not only has an election commission, but actually investigates complaints. Can’t ask for more than that.
I repeat. I find it odd that people are continually surprised when Muslim countries actually have a hefty amount of the voting population that prefers Shariah as part of their law of the land, and say so when they are able to express that in an election. Pakistan has continued to vote it down, over the past decades, but it appears that tide is changing among disillusioned Pakistani youth between 18-29.
The lesson should be clear. Cultural differences, and generations of exposure to governance unlike anything we know, affects their own version of Muslim elections and government. Ergo, it should never surprise anyone that, left to their own decision, they won’t be picking western style democracy because they have no clue what it is, and seem unable to settle any disputes except by riots and violence.
@MataHarley: #8,
Evidently we view the same scene, but see different realities. No problem – different perspectives are useful. I do not believe any of the voting or poling numbers emanating from most foreign countries, and who publishes hardly matters. We have enough problem with accepting the veracity of our own voting results. Middle East? Zero credibility. I know Egyptians were looking for a change in their economic circumstances and that gave energy to the winds of change, but I don’t believe any of the Muslim Brotherhood published results on the referendum. The biggest protest march in human history indicates that a majority rejected the Shariah dictatorship Morsi implemented. . . . Sure, some of the youth flipped when they felt cheated by Morsi, still.
I also don’t agree that he acted because of the do nothing Assembly and Judiciary. Morsi and the MB did what they intended all along — what really rattled timing and smooth process for them was egos fighting for supremacy in the ranks of the new fundamentalist dictatorship. Additionally, Morsi’s playing at ‘I’ll shuffle generals’ to gain control of the military wasn’t going to sit well — he was forced by fear to move too rapidly on all fronts and the ugliness of the monster became readily evident.
We also disagree on the responsibility for the current violence. MB leadership is cut from the same cloth which guys like Ahmadinejad was cut from — able to use children as shields or use them to march in line to detonate mine-fields as Ahmadinejad did in Iran’s war against Sadam. Each family in the region had to chose one child to sacrifice — because children did not scatter to the wind when a bomb mine exploded the way mules did. Children were more manageable. We’re witnessing the extremes of what humans can do to achieve power and influence when we observe the MB in action on the streets of Cairo. No sacrifice is too much.
For now whatever confusion offers up once the recriminations settle down and someone rises to power, which may take years, we should stand back, leave it alone and let it play out. Other ME countries with money will now have no choice but to join in the fray quelling the violence, lest the shrapnel of MB et al, hits them.
I notice that our good friend the Saudi dictator is weighing in against the MB, . . . the House of Saud wants fundamentalism, but only ITS kind of fundamentalism, the kind that has a Saud in charge as supreme ruler. Some of the hundreds of billions of dollar we sent to them and Kuwait will find their way into fighting the MB.
Hassan al-Banna must be proud of what his progeny has wrought.
@vince, this isn’t semantics. To be “exempt” from O’healthcare means that Congress and their staffers would not have to purchase and prove health insurance. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not what happened.
I tried to explain this in my comment #61 on another thread early this month. Fact is, Congress placed on onus only on themselves that stated all Congressional members and their employees *could not keep their current insurance policies* and MUST purchase new insurance thru the exchanges (or else pay for their own totally).
The FEHB has an employer contribution with *all* federal employees. They could all continue on their current plans, but since the ACA amendment forced this select group off that plan, and on to new plans, the question was whether the employer contributions could continue. That is not a regulation or ban in the ACA. It’s an administrative question for the FEHB.
In short, it comes down to this. The FEHB, like any other employer offering group plans, contributed x amount to the employees insurance on their plans. Now that they are forced to a new plan, where other federal employees are not, they can still contribute the same amounts they did before… but to a different insurer.
Nor is it some some extra consideration or favor. Fact is, what it did do was screw only a small segment of federal workers – denying them the ability to keep the plans they had if they wanted, contrary to Obama’s promise to the rest of the nation. This “exemption” stuff just makes me cringe since it makes everyone look really low info voter’esque. If even Freedomworks can’t straighten out the conspiracy heads, who the heck can?
The answer is that Obama and the democrats plan to take back the house come Fall. It does not matter if they have to lie, cheat and fix the votes, they believe it can be done. They saw what they could accomplish with 2 presidential elections and it has empowered them. They know that once they again have the house, they can shove more bad, socialist, progressive legislation down our throats. It seems to be both the obvious and unavoidable conclusion to Obam’s unconstitutional actions.
@James Raider, no biggie. Everyone gets to their opinions via different methods. Just two observations.
Yes, the High Election Commission’s website did release the results. Downside? It’s in Arabic….
INRE acting because of a “do nothing” Judiciary and Military (he was part of the “assembly”… rather like our exec branch). Where you and I differ may be because of the summarized timeline I provided on events to show that Morsi didn’t start out seizing power… he ended up doing so after bumping heads with the military and the judiciary.
For the judiciary, the last straw was ousters and not allowing them to write the judiciary section of the Constitution. For the military, Sinai plays a huge role in what was going on in the relationship with Morsi. Mubarak’s military was used to cracking down on the AQ (not to be confused with the MB in any way) and Islamist smuggling and terror activities there. Morsi started out too soft, and didn’t actually take action until forced later in the game. By then, he was already losing the support of the military. And to assume any genuine despotic power, he needs the military big time.
There’s in interesting analysis from Sahar Aziz on Sinai’s role in Morsi’s downfall. That is, of course, only one piece of the puzzle that was the battles for power between the judiciary, the assembly and Morsi, and the military.
Ultimately, despite how you and I get to our respective reasons and opinions, both of seem to agree that standing back and letting the neighbors do the heavy lifting is the way to go.
@MataHarley: #17,
This may be the most contentious and significant point of all for the West and for Washington in particular.
After decades of intrusion, we must allow the neighborhood to make some serious decisions. We have too long panpered and pandered in our dance with the artificially created oil kingdoms. It’s high time they very publicly got their hands dirty.
IMHO, way back, we lost a huge opportunity to negotiate very long term contracts on oil and gas with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait when American lives and treasures were risked and expended to defend them against Sadam’s invasion. Now let’s see what their flavour of fundamentalism brings to Egypt’s wellbeing.
You said a mouthful there, JamesR.
ALL Muslims think they want Sharia…..until they get it.
THEN many of them FLEE to countries where there is No Sharia….yet.
And what do they do when they get away from their old Sharia?
Set up plans to institute Sharia in their new homeland!
But, as you said, they want THEIR version of Sharia.
Sharia is only good if you are in power.
ALL underlings of Sharia, whether infidels, ”people of the book,” or Muslims suffer.
If only every Muslim on earth could have his own little realm where his version of Sharia reigned supreme.
And, Mata H.
Coptics ARE Christians….they even have a Pope.
The Copts are the native Christians of Egypt.
Just as there are black native Jews in Ethiopia who have not adopted any of the European Jewish thinking, so, too are there Christians in Africa who had nothing to do with the Protestant European movements or the Roman Church.
I understand that, Nan G. However for the purposes of segregating population into religious beliefs (i.e. CIA World Factbook), they are listed separately. That is why I said I would assume you were including the Egyptian Copts in the mix.
Still wouldn’t have made a lick of difference.
@Nan G: #19,
What I find insane is that 60 years ago, 50 years ago, 40 years ago, this disease of fundamentalism had not infected the ME generally. Morocco, and Algeria, for example, even after their revolutions, did not harbor the extremist mania which we see today across the whole of the middle east. This fundamentalism was cooked in the trillion dollar cauldrons of oil and gas.
Each ME country has different relationships to Islam through its different Ayatollahs, Muftis, Caliphs, Mullahs and Imams, but I do not think that a majority of Egyptians desire to be ruled by Shariah. (BTW: Shariah is Shariah by any other name – I’m not suggesting otherwise.)
Egypt actually needs knowledgeable and educated leadership which can inspire economic growth. Egypt, unlike most of its neighbors, cannot lazily rely on the pumping of oil for sustenance.
I’ll run out on a limb here and assert that a very small percentage of Iranians support the religious fanatics who rule their country, or support Shariah. All of them live in fear, but aren’t too overwhelmed, so they put up with it. The principal reason the Tehranian loons have survived in power is that they dictatorially control a rich country whose raw exports can sustain, and camouflage their incompetence, and keep the army leadership in cash. It would take little to ignite a revolution there, as we’ve seen.
Egypt is a nation without the same cushion which leaves its population in a very different situation. Egyptians cannot live on handouts and wealth redistribution from oil and gas. They have some gas, but depend on tourism and export of textiles and some crops. Egypt doesn’t have the luxury of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia which might enable it to wallow in fundamentalist blundering. Even young Egyptians understand this.
I will not disagree, nor agree with this statement. Mostly I’m curious as to how how you believe fundamentalist Islamists rose in the wake of big bucks from oil? We all know that Islamists prefer a world that shuns capitalist gains, unless they are funding their jihad, of course. Then all bets are off and they don’t care where the cash comes from.
I think this needs some clarification, JR. I agree that I don’t think the majority of Muslims in more modern countries desire to be ruled with some aspects of Shariah… dismembering, beheading, stoning, honor killings, etc. But I disagree in that they do want to have Shariah courts for their litigation for finances, civil/domestic/divorce. So in that aspect, not all “shariah” is alike to a modern Muslim. Egypt, however, is not a nation I would consider that is overwhelmingly “modern” in some of these issues. Pakistan and Iran, even Iraq, tend to be more civilized, blending west with their Islam religions. Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etal? More like the dark ages of Islam.
Ahh, the shortcomings of ‘commenting.’ Yup, revelation on just this paragraph should be deep and wide, nevertheless, . . . . Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia or more specifically from the so called royal family the Saudis, and Shi’a Islam from Iran, are two major examples of energies being spread, both are fundamentalist. Let’s not nip-pick here on which is more or less anything, they both evolved to purify (fundamentalize) their religion which had developed or had been modernized through over a millennium of use. Through the past half century just these two countries alone financed the rapid spread of their fundamentalism. Whether they were building mosques, and madrassas throughout the world or arming fundamentalists toward incursions, the price was hundreds of billions of dollars. THAT CASH came from our consumption of their OIL and their GAS. The cash hoards they accumulated came not because they were brilliant capitalists, but because they had oil in the ground. We paid for the pleasure of being the targets of that narrow-minded religious extremism. Without that cash, these fundamentalists wouldn’t be a source of discussion today, and it is that fundamentalism which is today the global network providing an entrenched foundation for Shariah.
Saudis are perfect specimens of hypocrisy. Their senior family members enjoy cosmopolitan centers such as London, where they can go drink, gamble and hire crowds of prostitutes in privacy, all the while making sure that at home, their police impose the most extreme punishment for breaking their Islamic laws. Same story for their neighbors such as Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, etc. They aren’t building futures for their own people or creating industries, or building companies that will feed their great-great grandchildren. They do know how to spend lavishly for today on themselves and they know how to consume. They know how to export extremism, they just don’t know how to educate a society which needs to eat, work, and feel fulfilled, self-reliant, and satisfied – well, other than how to pillage another society.
Sure, they’ll be arguing with one another, even kill one another, disagreeing over a Caliph’s dictates, etc., but in the end it’s all the same, and all heading in one direction — and we’re in the way. “We” being everyone who isn’t on their fundamentalist train.
It amazes that so many are puzzled that so called regular Muslims don’t “speak out” against acts of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. The Koran isn’t hard to read, it’s just hard to ‘read.’
@MataHarley: They are not the only ones who are confused:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/opm-fleshes-out-congresss-obamacare-subsidy-rule/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/usa-health-congress-idUSL1N0G820F20130807
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355176/congresss-obamacare-waiver-michael-f-cannon
@James Raider:
Poignant and humorous, but then you realize we need to deal with these barbarians:
@vince, hence my statement above, that this is “…going to be one of the mythical lies that will have legs, right up there with birthers and truthers.” There seems to be no end to pundits that are averse to the task of researching facts, and prefer to spread hot ticket hyperbole for Internet traffic and loud chit chat. The “conservative” brand takes a hit from stupidity like this and, quite frankly, I resent it. I wish blogs, hits, traffic, ads and revenues could be separate from facts so that the right doesn’t look like the very same low info voter they accuse the left of being, simply to get a lot of Internet thumbs ups (so to speak).
Just because there are lots of right wing pundits making this error doesn’t mean it’s any more correct in facts. It just shows that gossip, lies, barely half truths and hyperbole – when it’s the right subject and projected to the right audience with scandalous headlines – goes viral and makes everyone look exceedingly gullible.
@James Raider, it sorta sounds like you are reiterating the same version of what I said… that they don’t care where the cash comes from when it pays for jihad… but more eloquently.
However I will still question your analysis and thought process. “Fundamentalism”, or radical Islamism, waaaay predates the rise of oil from the sands of the Middle East. It may have become a means to revitalize it in modern times by funding jihad on a larger, more modern, scale. But it certainly isn’t the roots (or “cooked from the cauldrons of”) of fundamentalist Islam.
@MataHarley: Unfortunately, distorting reality has somewhat become the trademark of today’s so-called conservatives. Since successfully conning folks into Iraq and then rewarded with a re-election, they’ve learned they can take profound dishonesty to an entirely new level with little to no consequences. And with an accomplice like Fox News, the SCOTUS firmly at their side, untold wealth from corporations sitting on record profits with no plans of hiring, the sky’s the limit.
But when you look at today’s GOP’s true colors of theocratic, plutocratic, racist, sexist, obstructionist, ecocide, and reverse Robin Hood practices, it’s actually rather difficult to sell anything to the voters other than snake oil. For example, they cannot argue and succeed on eliminating ACA on any rational level so dishonesty and fear mongering is simply all they have. And if you look at the results of those tactics, it’s likely the only shot they have.
@Ronald J. Ward: Reality left far in the rear view mirror, the pot calling the kettle racist.
@bburris: If you rely solely on Hannity or Rush as you news inlet, I suppose I understand your misguided statement. I mean, it’s kinda like the PPP poll that showed that more Louisianan Republicans blame Obama for the botched Katrina government response than they do Bush. Seriously! I’m not making it up. And most likely, several contributors and writers here do as well. So while you may believe the response you wrote, I don’t. Reality simply isn’t on your side.
@Ronald J. Ward: Why is it that when the left argues and are faced with discomforting facts, the fall back position (if racism cannot be accused which, of course, you tried) is to refer to Rush, Fox, blah, blah, blah? Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from and the FACT is that Obama will not hesitate to violate whatever law, right, amendment(s) or rules he feels he needs to in order to pursue his unpopular agenda. Your reference to Fox assisting in “conning” anyone about the threat posed by Iraq after 9/11 completely ignores the full-fledged support of the effort put forth by Hillary and Bill; the intelligence was faulty and Bill Clinton contributed to that.
Your reference to the PPP poll could be just as well turned around; how many still blame Bush for the response when the actual fault lay with the Democrat governor of LA and the Democrat mayor of New Orleans at the time? And, that misguided blame was all stoked by the left wing press arm of the Democrat party.
So, your continued harping of the Fox dominated media world is merely (and obviously) pointing in the opposite direction of the left wing media running cover and support for Obama, Hillary and the Democrat party and yelling “LOOK!”. It is dishonest.
Some things aren’t being delay due to this law..
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html?s=print
Salesmanship is one thing…reality is a different matter.
@MataHarley: #27,
Whoaaaa, I did not intend to write claims that this is where fundamentalism started, I wrote that in the oil riches were the fuel for its explosion. I didn’t think that I’d even infered otherwise. It’s an important distinction – “this fundamentalism” meant the current crop and referred to what we are being subjected to, not “fundamentalism” generally. I should have extended that sentence to be absolutely explicit.
For starters, “radical Islamism” started with Muhammad, IMHO. But then most religions start out that way, and through the ages evolve and morph to become more ‘relevant’ or as time passes, some of their proselytizers become more clever salesmen.
If oil didn’t exist under the sands of Arabia, movements evangelizing return to the radical original would be gasping for air in Mecca. Not that the Islam which had evolved was particularly distant from what Muhammad intended, but the interpretation of radical elements and tenets had eased slightly through time and through geographical dispersion — similarly to what had long occurred to Christianity through 2000 years of massaging, pulling and pushing.
@Skookum: #26,
Thanks Skook – hard to be humorous with this subject, but a light approach sometimes makes it palatable, . . . for the writer that is. 🙂 Writing starts with amusing yourself, and everything else comes after, as you know. The mind too often finds humor where sharing it would be inappropriate for someone, somewhere and puts it back in the box – but then, don’t most of us restrain ourselves a little?
@Ronald J. Ward, I assure you that I am conservative to my bones, tho some here will argue I don’t fit the parameters of their personal “conservative” guidelines. I just have lines drawn for petty stuff and conspiracy theories.. and there is no dearth of that from both the right and the left.
And speaking of that, you hit some of those nerve centers with your comment above. Just so you know where I stand for any future debates, lest you think I’m something I’m not, I’ll give you a crash course in some of my beliefs.
I wasn’t “conned”, and neither was Congress with the AUMF. I have enough reading and examination of documents, memos etal to know that Saddam was dealing with Islamists in order to advance his own position and thwart sanctions and OFF. He was an enemy of the US, represented a clear and present danger, and I believe Iraq was the right decision to this day, as you can see by my comment #31 here.
I get news from all sources… both cable and Internet. Altho I admit the one that’s hard to sit thru is MSNBC, so that’s limited for ad nausea purposes. The MSM is what it is. I just consider it part of a puzzle, and seek out more info from alternative sources before accepting punditry as facts.
SCOTUS is not firmly at FOXs or the conservative side. Kennedy remains the swing vote, separating the strict constructionist judges from the living constitution judges. Depending upon the issue, sometimes the majority rules in favor of the right or the left. It’s disingenuous to suggest the High Court is dominated by conservatives as historic opinions belie that.
If you’re concerned about evil corporations not hiring, you can speak with the current POTUS and his Fed Reserve god, who’ve enabled easy money with a continue, and steeper, dive in monetary devaluation, stimulus and low rates. Then add Dodd Frank and O’healthcare to that, and the trend becomes clear. And that is Congress and the WH will attempt to take more of the private sector profits, creating uncertainty in an economic environment where consumer spending will be going down and growth will be anemic. Of course they aren’t hiring… and if they do, it will be three part timers instead of one full timer.
While the left loves to paint the right as those evil wealthy, it appears that the largest degree of runaway profits comes from Dem controlled Congress and WH.
But I will again remind you that corporations have stock holders, who benefit from their profits. There is a slight majority of employed citizens who are vested in some way in stocks, pensions etc. They may not benefit as much as the CEO, nor should they. However when the corporation does well, so does Joe Blow stockholder with his pension or 401K.
Those are some pretty ugly words, blanketing a lot of people, Ronald. Unfortunately the traits you mention above do exist, but they are not confined to those dependent upon left or right political ideology. People are individuals, and most are a mixture of political leanings. Just because you are focusing on louder voices who you find offensive, doesn’t mean the bulk of voices are the same. And I will point out that I see the same offensive, rude and intolerant commentary and debate on liberal/progressive blogs. Sorry.. the high road does not exclusively belong to the left.
As a perfect example of that snake oil being sold by the left, one need only consider the BS put out by Skipping Dog, aka El Kabong, and his attempts to convince everyone that government and spending under Obama is less than Bush, and that he shrank federal government when his own links proved that it grew under Obama. What “shrank” was state and local.
The “they” you discuss includes me, and I’ve provided monetary reasons (comment #19) as to why O’healthcare is a fiscal disaster that will join with SS and Medicare, tanking the US economy. The Dem controlled Congresses, along with willing GOP, who created SS and Medicare did so without a lick of forward vision as to what would happen when there weren’t enough Peters left to pay the senior Pauls. Now O’healthcare is just doubling down on that by adding a third entitlement and expanding Medicaid to unsustainable levels.
Fear mongering? Oh no. Just objective analysis of simple mathematics based on CMS, Census, BIA and CBO projections. But then math has never been the strong suit of politicians… and least of all the liberal/progressive politicians. In their efforts over decades to “promote the general welfare”, they have mutilated all restriction of power as stated by the Constitution. Personally, I’d like to clean House and Senate, destroy all agencies, remove all laws from the US Code and start from scratch.
I suspect that now, when you and I speak, you’ll know a bit more of where I am coming from?
@James Raider, thanks for clarification. Obviously I misread what you wrote, thereby left me head scratching… LOL
@bburris: You know bburris, you’re confusion of facts verses opinions actually validates my argument.
You see, President Obama has not been convicted of any violations of the law which pretty much renders your matter-of-fact statement rather, well, not factual at all. And aside from the trumped up and fabricated “scandals” which people of reasonable intellect have deduce to be pretty much nothingburgers, his administration has been pretty much scandal free, even more so when compared to his predecessor.
And back to my original argument, non-factual charges built on fabricated arguments grabbed out of thin air seems to be all today’s so called conservatives have.
@Ronald J. Ward: So, if not convicted, you feel Obama is not guilty of enacting laws, already voted down by Congress, by Royal decree, choosing which laws shall be enforced and which shall not, in order to try and help Democrats in elections, stonewall a plethora of investigations, which only draws all pointing fingers directly to his direction and violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments? Is so, then Bush is guilty of absolutely NO wrong throughout his entire administration since, as of this writing, he walks a free man.
I frequent the Dallas Morning News blogs and almost every liberal I encounter can recite the same mantra you employ; “Fox news lies, Fox news supports the Republican party, Fox news, Fox news, Fox news” and, even upon frequent requests, can never cite examples of willful lying, distortion or, as in the case of NBC, ABC and the majority of left wing propaganda outlets, editing video, statements or outright lying.
We conservatives can always tell what puts the abject fear in the hearts of liberals; they all, like a telegraph vine, attack in unison (per directions) with the same language and faulty logic, the same target.
Fast and Furious, resulting in at least one American death and hundreds of Mexican deaths, “trumped up”? The fact that Obama, who claims to have nothing to do with it, claiming executive privilege to cover the idiot Holder, “fabricated”? The IRS violating the rights of conservative groups to facilitate Democrat election chances (in the midst of their widespread failure) “fabricated”? All roads lead to the White House on that one, unless the White House will finally cooperate with investigations that could show otherwise.
Abject incompetence and dereliction of duty, resulting in 4 deaths in Benghazi “trumped up”? How about proof, other than one of the prime suspects claiming “what difference does it make”? ALL proof indicates lies, incompetence, detachment and a massive cover-up. Only a blind fool can remain unaware of it.
The NSA collecting data on EVERYONE “trumped up”? Wild accusations from the quarters that criticized a far more limited program by Bush and even illegally exposed the tapping of overseas phones and tracking terrorist’s funds.
Put your keyboard down, Ronald; your baseless bias is showing.
@bburris: I don’t elevate my keyboard when I type so your “Put your keyboard down, Ronald; your baseless bias is showing” zinger is pretty much a non sequitur albeit the most worthy of rebuttal from your response, which shouldn’t be construed as a compliment.
@MataHarley:
Mata, you seem to be missing the issue when you keep claiming that congress has not been exempted from obamacare, relying on the concept that the health insurance costs for congress and staffers has been paid for prior to obamacare. What you refuse to acknowledge is that folks working for private companies making far less than what congress members and their staff make are losing their employer health insurance and being pushed into the obamacare exchanges. If the worker makes more than 400% of the federally defined poverty level, the worker gets no subsidy from the taxpayers. The subsidy is a sliding scale, so the closer you get to that 400% limit, the less subsidy support you get. For a single person this limit is around $43, 000/yr. For a family of 4, it is somewhere around $75, 000/yr. Those numbers came from a BLS website google search. Congress members and a huge portion of their staff make well above those amounts, yet the OMB ruling says these government workers will get 75% of their health care insurance costs picked up by the taxpayers. This is a double standard that is the basis for the outrage and the claims that congress has been exempted from the negative impact of obamacare. Businesses cannot just raise taxes like the government does. Businesses can only pass on so much to the consumer via increased prices before the business goes bankrupt from having too few paying customers.
It is the disgusting hypocrisy of the government to make special arrangements for themselves while imposing onerous burdens on the rest of us that is the basis for the charge that congress exempted itself. Parse words all you want. The underlying concept is crystal clear.
@Ronald J. Ward: Out of ammunition, I see. You may go now.
@Pete, dang… don’t even know where to start there, guy.
O’healthcare says you must prove insurance or pay a penalty. Congressional members and staff are not exempt from that mandate. The arrangements between and employer-employee – whether private or public sector – are not regulated via O’healthcare.
Hence, there is no “exemption” since the only exemption that could exist is if they do not have to prove insurance coverage. End of story.
Your problem is you are equating the federal government employer contribution with a “subsidy”. You are also assuming that all Congressional members and staffers get 75% contributions, which also isn’t true. That is also a sliding scale, and the max amount on that scale from the federal government employer is 75%. That doesn’t mean they all get 75% contribution.
The “subsidies” are in place for low income… they are not a substitute for, or the same thing as, the employer contribution – whether that employer is the federal government, or any lower government level, or a private sector company. All public employees enjoy a contribution from their government employer. You are now demanding that be removed, but only for Congress and staffers, and want to re label it a “subsidy”. Or would you like to label all federal employer contributions to rest of the federal employees, outside of Congress and staffers, “subsidies” too?
@MataHarley: Considering I could obviously get quite long winded as there’s plenty there to chew on, I’ll try to condense this as much as possible.
For starters, I don’t have a problem with most of conservative issues or conservative policy. If you noticed, I am not critical of the ideology (although there’s room for debate on several aspects of it- just as there is from others as well) but rather, I criticize “today’s conservatives” or “today’s GOP” as they are certainly not the party I grew up with, by any stretch. They are not Reagan conservatives nor are they Eisenhower conservatives as those 2 would likely be ran out of town as socialist/liberals from hell if they were running today.
Now let me add that I don’t have a problem with capitalism. I’m all for companies making profits, even huge profits. However, I do have a problem when those capitalist become the owners of the government, defies the will and well being of our economic structure, and exploits the constituents. I’ve argued how the tax breaks are a disaster and in that same link, the problems with today’s GOP kowtowing solely to corporate interests, more so than I recall in my lifetime. And the reason, I believe, is that an extremely corporate friendly SCOTUS has granted corporations unprecedented favors while chipping away at worker’s rights and protections.
You may recall that I’m not much of a Tea Party fan as I’ve argued that they were corporately orchestrated, funded by billionaires, and ran by prominent right wing extremist. And while I agree with you that MSNBC is a far left political hack machine (I really find it hard to watch or tolerate), my issue with Fox is that they were a tool for the Tea Party, giving untold free airtime and slanted reviews, pretty much promoting them at every opportunity. And after spending 8 years as a mouthpiece for the Bush team only to turn around and be a smear machine for Obama, it’s hard for me to give them much credence.
I’ve haggled ACA extensively and at the end of the day, conservatives come up empty on any constructive plan on dealing with what was a very broken and deficit exploding health care system. And aside from all the misinformation, ACA reduces the deficit verses doing nothing.
So even from a conservative perspective, I have a problem with all these people going to the ER and forcing me to pick up the tab. I have a problem with my tax money going for food stamps to families of full time WalMart workers. However, these people, who work every day, are living in poverty and insurance is impossible to obtain. And I guess it’s just that ugly liberal side of me that simply can’t support the concept that they “go home and die” or to take food away from hungry kids. Today’s conservative don’t want to address those issues with honesty. The GOP House turned down a meager minimum wages increase so I’m still feeding kids in poverty who’s parents work for a corporation raking in $billions. And if we repeal, I’ll ether keep paying those ER bills or 30 million Americans can simply go home to die—while insurers make untold profits while the deficit explodes.
Yes, those are some pretty ugly words and I truly regret it’s what we’re dealing with. Unfortunately, it’s not very far off target.
@Ronald J. Ward: “But when you look at today’s GOP’s true colors of theocratic, plutocratic, racist, sexist, obstructionist, ecocide, and reverse Robin Hood practices, it’s actually rather difficult to sell anything to the voters other than snake oil. ” Just wondering, as you gleefully accept the unfounded common liberal talking points to describe the GOP (where is the racism? where is the sexism? where is the plutocracy? where is the Robin Hood evidence? where is the ecocide? where is the obstructionism? where is the theocracy? Most of what you state is the perception in comparison to the far, far left stance of the Democrat party today) yet you ignore the wide-spread examples of misogynistic practices among high-level Democrats, the vile and violent attacks on any woman that dares not be liberal and speaks, the constant and continued race-baiting for political purpose, the political games played in Congress by Democrats who will not support their own legislation, then blame Republicans for obstructing, the rampant and blatant political hackmanship of rewarding political contributors with taxpayer monies and watching investment after investment fail, the ongoing support, and of course, the requisite vilification of anyone that disagrees, of the man-caused global warming, despite scientific evidence (inexplicable by warmists) of NO warming for 16 years AND warming occurring throughout the solar system and the long, long list of hypocritical diversions from Obama’s campaign pledges, often conducting business in the exact opposite manner in which he promised? Anything?
@MataHarley:
Save the condescension, Mata, because your parsing and hairsplitting does not alter the simple, obvious fact that Congress is giving itself a different set of rules under OBAMACARE (stop with the ‘o’healthcare’ stupidity already) than what the rest of us peasants have. I am not confusing anything. I would love to see any citation for your claim that congress members and staffers are not going to get taxpayer coverage of 75% of their healthcare insurance costs, because that is not what I have been seeing. Happy to be enlightened if you have info that I have not seen.
You continue to sidestep the blatant disregard politicians have for citizens. Your comment that “The arrangements between and employer-employee – whether private or public sector – are not regulated via O’healthcare.” is one of the most laughable and inaccurate strawman bits I think I have ever seen. How does mandating 30 hours per week as “full-time” for purposes of determining whether or not an employer has to provide health insurance NOT regulating the arrangements between employer and employee? Are you telling me that obamacare doesn’t have an employer mandate? So how on earth can you credibly claim that obamacare does not regulate ‘arrangements between employer-employee”? Your argument is bizarre at best, especially for someone who repeatedly claims to be against obamacare.
Secondly, if one were to – for the sake of argument only – accept your odd claim at face value, then you still should explain why businesses (that must make a profit or go bankrupt) have to put stringent limits on the manner of providing the health insurance they could afford to provide employees BEFORE obamacare, now that obamacare has led to skyrocketing costs of health insurance even before it has been fully implemented – is not different from the de facto exemption from obamacare that congress has given itself from the onerous economic burden of obamacare. You keep dodging the question with the patented tangential-deflection-misdirection debate tactic of a leftist.
What Congress has done is unethical. They see the inherent negative economic effect of obamacare then find a technicality to shield themselves from the problem while insisting that the rest of the country accept the toke of obamacare slavery for the sake of the collective. Your willfull blindness to this, from someone who repeatedly claims to be against obamacare and to be conservative is quite disheartening.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Provide a single shred of evidence that obamacare reduces the deficit. You have nothing but obama’s lies and propaganda. All those supposed savings were based on all the new taxes being imposed for ten years while only paying “benefits” for 6 years. They also assumed that everyone would jump into the obamacare exchanges the instant they opened, which is not going to be the case. There are plenty of much more accurate estimates of the budget-busting impact of this diseased socialist insanity:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-math-obamacare-would-increase-deficits-$59-billion
http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/716savings-what-savings-obamacare-deficit-reduction-mislead.html
These discuss the recent GAO report that predicts obamacare will INCREASE the deficit by $6.2 TRILLION over an estimated 75 years.
http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/17/morgan-griffith/morgan-griffith-says-gao-estimates-obamacare-will-/
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-won-t-add-dime-deficit-add-1-231800123.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/24/three-years-into-the-relationship-obamacare-starts-breaking-promises/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040212-606490-obamacare-adds-17-trillion-in-debt.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-why-obamacare-add-hundreds-of-billions-to-the-deficit-2012-4?op=1
There is nothing good about obamacare. If someone has to lie to you and bribe you to buy something from him, then only a fool would believe he is getting a good deal by going along with it. When the lying SOB refuses to partake of the same drink he is offering you, how stupid must one be to accept what is being forced upon him?
@Pete, you and I have already been down this road on another thread when you said:
Yes they do. Congress and staffers – unlike the other federal employees – are forced on to the exchanges and they are no longer allowed to have the insurance plans they used to have via the ACA amendment. So @now you are saying:
That is correct, but you seem to be under the impression that it’s an advantage when it’s actually more restrictive. They had a carrier plan with FEHB, and *only* Congress and staffers are forced to abandon that plan and go on to the exchanges. Ergo, they cannot keep the plan they had, when they liked it.
First, let’s highlight the obvious. ALL federal employees, and their benefits, are funded by taxpayer money. Likewise all State and local level employees, and their benefits, are funded by the affected taxpayers. This isn’t anything new, so what’s your point?
All public employers (i.e. governments using taxpayer funds for their employees) offer a perk like employer contribution to health care, pensions etal… not dissimilar to a lot of private sector employers. What the federal government contributes was codified in law under the Balanced Budget Act in 1997.
As you can see, depending upon if the employee is selecting the self coverage or family plans, or an individual plan, the percentage not only differs, but is a weighted average of all the plans offered thru the FEHB. This has been the case for over a decade.
Since only Congress and their staffers are forced off their plans, and the rest of the federal employees are not, the OPM issued rules that their prior employer contributions will continue as before, and remain equal with what the other federal employees enjoy as their perk. The OPM FAQs are here.
There is no mandate on private sector employers that they *must* provide health plans, contributions, or the amount/percent of those contributions for their employees.
Actually what Congress did was screw themselves, and their staffers, over royally by mandating they can no longer keep the policies they had, and must go on to the exchange. O’healthcare… or Obamacare for the hypersensitive… did not do that for the rest of the federal employees, or the rest of the citizens.
Pete, it’s as simple as this. Joe got hired in the assembly line by Acme Corp, where he had an % employer contribution to his health plan as a perk. O’healthcare came along and said that Acme can’t offer that plan to the assembly line workers anymore, but they could continue to offer it in all their other departments. Joe and his assembly workers must go on to a different plan.
So Acme Corp says, OK Joe… what I was contributing to your first health plan, I’ll continue to contribute to your new plan. But Pete comes along and says *NO!* You can’t do that because you’re making up special rules and giving yourself an advantage.
Now, the only difference between Acme and reality is that Acme is a private company who uses their profits to fund their payroll and benefits. Public sector… *all* public sector… employers all use taxpayer money allocated to them via their budget funding. But it’s not “special”, it’s not new, and in fact it’s quite unfair to suggest that on a targeted portion of federal employees, who used to have a contribution, are no longer allowed to have that contribution because the ACA forced them out of the plan they had…. and you don’t like it.
On the other hand, I agree with you that there is nothing good about the ACA. It’s a financial money pit that will take the US further down into the fiscal toilet.
To Pete @ # 46, while your links may indicate a significant cost of The Affordable Care Act, The CBO has concluded that repealing it will cost more.
To Bburris @ # 44, I could give you the benefit of the doubt about you questioning some of my accusations however you demonstrate either a profound ignorance or a complete denial by asking ” where is the racism? where is the sexism? where is the plutocracy? where is the Robin Hood evidence? where is the ecocide? where is the obstructionism?”. I suppose one way to solve a problem is to simply pretend the problem doesn’t exist? I mean, are you suggesting there’s no evidence that minorities and women haven’t been somewhat turned off by the GOP? Is this the 1st time you’ve heard of the GOP obstruction? Did you not know that there has been heated battles over the environment? I suppose the argument that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer and that the GOP advocates lower taxes for the rich while discouraging minimum wage increases for workers is simply something I fabricated? And there are no Koch Brothers or wealthy political influence as them liberals just made all that up. If you are that ignorant of today’s politics, I’m not wasting my time trying to update you. If you are aware and simply being evasive or distracting, I have no time for such silliness.
As far as evidence, you may refer back to the Nov election as it pretty much speaks volumes. You may also look at how the GOP’s very own fears of a demographic extinction. Perhaps this explains why several right leaning states are doing everything in their power to disenfranchise the minority voters. Or, do you need evidence there’s such an argument? Actually, this explains the all out panic in repealing ACA as the more people that become eligible, the harder it will be to take away, kinda like Social Security and Medicare.
@MataHarley:
Wow…you are going to keep twisting away from acknowledging the obvious, aren’t you? You don’t have to waste time explaining things about which I am not debating you. I don’t know how to make this any more simple:
1. Obamacare by definition is forcing unwanted changes upon employer-employee health care insurance arrangements. You making the ridiculous claim that obamacare does not mandate employers provide health care for employees begs the question as to why all these companies are cutting employee hours to less than 30 per week…to avoid the Obamacare mandate for providing health insurance. How can you keep a straight face while typing such hogwash as you are writing?
2. The fact that Obamacare is making health insurance too expensive for so many employers that they are forced to cut work hours, cut out spousal coverage for working spouses covered elsewhere, and to dump employees onto the obamacare exchanges, with the employees getting no subsidy nor compensation from their employers for the lost health insurance coverage is a disgusting feature of obamacare. The fact that congress used the OMB ruling to have taxpayers cover the costs of obamacare insurance for its members and staffers is hypocritical when non-government employees who are losing their previous employer provided insurance are not getting such support. THAT is the point I have repeatedly made to you. Your deliberate obtuseness to this point is downright puzzling for a purported conservative claiming to be opposed to obamacare.
3. Your cute little condescending Acme example doesn’t fit with what is going on here, Mata. As a private company in your fictional story, Acme can make whatever rules it wants regarding the manner in which it provides benefits to it’s employees (within federal legal restrictions) and the employees are free to accept those arrangements or look for employment elsewhere with benefits more to their liking. Acme is not forcing people who work for other non-Acme companies start paying additional money to cover Joe’s department at Acme so they can have the same health insurance the rest of the employees at Acme get. You really don’t understand that forcing one set of rules on non-government employees in private businesses while having a different set of rules for congressional members and staff is unfair, unethical and hypocritical? You really can’t see how the fact that congress felt the need to have this sort of thing arranged to avoid “brain drain” from congress will have an equally negative impact on private business that cannot simply raise taxes to provide for the apparatachiks?
4. You actually wrote: There is no mandate on private sector employers that they *must* provide health plans, contributions, or the amount/percent of those contributions for their employees. Really? Then what is this “employer mandate” that Obama is postponing until Jan 2015? What is the reason employers are having to cut hours to <30/week, if there is no employer mandate for them to provide health insurance for employees? You are parsing words again, if you are simply hiding behind the rationalization that employers can instead pay the $2000/yr/employee 'fine' rather than pay for employee health insurance. That would be exceedingly disingenuous on your part, though.
I guess I am confused by your expression of antipathy towards the reality of obamacare with your refusal to admit that what Congress/OMB has done is shield themselves from the additional costs of obamacare while dumping on the rest of us. I was a government employee for 25 years. I am well aware that my military health care was paid for by taxpayers. But I wasn't making what congress members or their staff were making, and more importantly, I had NO LEGISLATIVE POWER to force taxpayers to pay even more in taxes to cover my health care insurance costs under obamacare.
@Ronald J. Ward:
109 million over 10 years is 10.9 billion per year to the deficit. Small potatoes compared to the increases in the deficit that will come if obamacare is not repealed.
Mr. Ward, why aren’t you admitting that all the claims made by Obama aren’t turning out to be at all accurate? Why aren’t you disturbed by the fact that the alleged decrease in health insurance premiums that Obama insisted would occur under his plan are in fact rising astronomically? Why aren’t you disturbed by the fact that companies are having to cut employee hours due to the massive increase in health insurance costs? Why aren’t you concerned about the fact that we have more people on food stamps after 5 years of obamanomics and the highest average unemployment rate since the Great Depression?
You blather on about “the rich getting richer and the poor poorer” despite 5 years of Obama’s economic policies, then act like conservative economic principles are to blame? Who are the richest politicians in congress? Oh yeah…that would be democrats, top 19 out of 20 richest members. Tell me again why we are supposed to believe that democrats give a soupy road apple’s worth of concern about poor people, because their economic policies do NOTHING to help the poor and middle class. Reagan’s tax cuts turned around the Carter recession in 2 years and led to the 20 years of economic boom that even Clinton rode upon.
Please, explain how Obama’s economic policies have helped improve the unemployment situation, helped people get off food stamps, increased GDP, and affected the deficit and national debt. Unless you ascribe to the marxist view of economics, there is nothing positive that Obama has done during his abysmal period of being president.
@Pete: Pete, I somewhat hate to intrude on your conversation with MataHarley but your argument of lost jobs and hours cut below 30 is simply over-hyped, unrealistic, and really is pretty much a nothingburger. While I’m sure you can provide isolated examples of evidence, all in all, it ain’t happening. It reminds me of a few years ago when right wing hack sites were trying to make viral a company claiming they wouldn’t hire until Obama was out of office. It’s one of those cut nose off to spite the face analogies. In the real world, employers actually pay considerable overtime throughout the year as it’s simply cheaper than adding additional manpower. So all these folks that are presently working people 40 hours a week aren’t going to gain by adding more employees and reducing hours. And if they could have reduced hours without that additional manpower, why on god’s green earth didn’t they? While I’m sure it’s a well out of date saying, duh!
You seem to be confused as to what the “employer mandate” is, Pete. (this link may help straighten you out, and take careful note of the first sentence).) Employers have two choices… they can either offer a compliant plan to their employees, or they can pay a fine (which is really a tax). What each employer will do will be based on which is cheaper. (smaller companies exempt from these penalties… er, taxes) Ergo, they [non exempt employers] are not ordered to provide the plan, but they will be “taxed” if they don’t. That’s why I always described O’healthcare as nothing more than an expansion of Medicaid as a third entitlement, and a heavy tax package.
If you’ll note, there is nothing in the ACA that mandates employers contribute to their employees cost (altho it would be foolish not to, in order to entice better employees), with specific percentages or splits. That’s a company policy. Some offer more, some less. Usually all companies offer something as a perk. Altho early House versions did try to sneak in a minimum contribution amount.
Since you’re repeating yourself here, this must be an important point for you. Fact is, most private employers have never offered their part time employees health insurance. This hasn’t changed. Again, this comes down to a business decision. If they can chop off a few full time employees, and replace that with twice the amount of part time employees who aren’t offered the same benfits, they will. Why you think this is related to O’healthcare is beyond me. Walmart’s been doing that for more than 10 years that I know of personally from people who worked there… always keeping them just under the required hours. That was when Obama was merely a junior Senator in IL.
What is making insurance more expensive is not ACA, but the rising costs of providing healthcare. This has been my major beef with the ACA from the start… it does not address the way to reduce those costs (the real problem), and is just another entitlement, tax hike and price fixing of premiums… as well as the individual mandate/tax penalty. What the ACA has done is give employers an out if they choose… drop their group plans, and pay a penalty that may work out cheaper than providing the plan.
How you ever get to that is beyond me. I’m as big a critic of this idiocy as the next guy. What I’m not opposed to is the federal government, as an employer, continuing to make employer contributions… just as they’ve *always* done… which is an internal policy for the OMA and FEHB, and not part of ACA.
Really? I’m under the impression that the original discussion is whether employer contributions to Congress and their staffers is the equivalent of being “exempt” from O’healthcare. They are not exempt in any form or fashion, but far be it for me to get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy talking point.
I think we’ve already hashed this out, Pete. You seem to have conceptions of what the ACA is and what it does, and no one is going to change that. The steam from your ears in frustration is starting to fog up my monitor, so I think it’s best we simply cease the discussion.