Time to pay our debts.

Pages

Time to pay our debts.

By francis

Politics • October 2013 • Views: 1,752

October 3, 2013

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,
Why aren’t you insisting that the CR Bill be in Conference Committee? This is the next step when the congress and the senate can’t agree on a major bill. At least the committee would be talking while you, the congress and the senate are playing your game. You had three years to present legislation to correct some of the problems with the ACA and you neglected to do it. You have forced congress to take this action because of major flaws in the ACA so you are as much the blame as they are. If you are pulling Reid’s strings, then pull the one that will start the conference process.
Going through this calamity over the ACA that isn’t doing what it was intended to do is a slap in the face to all Americans especially the people that are out of work and the people that won’t be covered by the program. I can’t believe that you actually read the bill or had an intelligent staff review it and point out the pitfalls and the strong attributes of the bill. Your decisions to exempt and delay portions of the bill does not demonstrate equality and democracy. A bill that is passed by the congress and the senate should not be altered by one person and the rules should not be altered to accommodate different groups in the population. The implementation of this controversial law has caused direct grief and misfortune to America.
You, the congress and the senate should pass a clean CR and Debt Ceiling Bill and let the ACA move towards its own destruction in its present form. The major contributor to this is the government’s lack of control in fiscal matters especially the waste of money spent on two wars that produced nothing but more controversy and long term debt. We have an obligation to pay our debts and we should, but we should also figure a way to control ourselves and our fiscal matters.
This game of stupidity has stopped other important legislation and medical treatment for children and veterans. It has added to our foolish image around the world and I am sure our enemies are pointing out the pitfalls of our democracy.

Recent Pages by francis:
Do your job or get out. Pass the CR and Debt legislation ACA and Conference The time is right. One for all and all for one

Jump to bottom

126 comments

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 5:48:15am

I am sure that if these letters are actually being sent to the White House, some staffer gets a good laugh every time one arrives.

Sheer ignorance. Almost every sentence shows the level of absurdity the ignorant are willing to fall for.

Francis, you crack me up. It is obvious you have no understanding of pretty much anything you write, beit how the US government operates, or your understanding of the issues.

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Seriously, you do realize that people are laughing at you, right? Head shakes all around.

Worse yet is your immense pride in your own ignorance. You wear it on your sleeve like a badge of honor.

Bravo, dear.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 6:21:38am

Maybe they should have classes during bootcamp for all soldiers on the Constitution and how our government works. It’s really embarrassing to keep reading these letters from a veteran who, I think, should know some basics about our government.

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 6:46:07am

Bringing over argument from previous thread since you did not want to continue it there.

In response to…

“A legit force that runs efficiently and doesn’t spend more than they take in and that treats everyone the same including the people that make the laws.”

Why doesn’t spend more than they take in?

Deficit spending is a fact of life for people, for companies, and for governments.

It is perfectly justified when spending x amount of money now prevents us from having to spend amount Y which is greater than x later.

For example it is better to go have us go into debt to repair a bridge, than leave it creaking and standing till it collapses and thus must be built again from scratch.

As for running effectively, talk to the GOP they’re the ones who insisted on transforming the filibuster into a mater of business as usual in the senate making an already undemocratic body (for it gives Wyoming as many votes as New York) even more so which has done more to create disjunction in our government than any other singular cause I can think of.

As for treating everyone the same, were you aware that the people in congress (not just congressmen but those who work for them as well) are forbidden from getting subsidies for coverage?

washingtonmonthly.com

Read that artical and some of the ones it links to and tell me if you still feel want the GOP is trying to put forward is a good idea.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:15:20am

re: #1 Joanne

I have never been one to go along to get along. Government works the way they want it to work and has very little regard for the Constitution. It seems as long as you get what you want, government is ok, when you are challenged it must be the person is crazy or doing this for laughs. You can laugh all you want, but it won’t be while your going to the bank to put money in. There are 13 steps to pass a law and one is going into conference, it is not an option unless you kill the bill and in this case it must be voted on. I don’t think government was designed to put the people 17 trillion dollars in debt and that is what this is all about, money, not health care.

demonocracy.info

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:19:37am

re: #2 Sionainn

You have no clue what this is all about and as far as my intelligence on the way government works, it doesn’t and that is the problem. Do you run your house on a deficit and misrepresent facts to your family? I DON’T THINK YOUR THAT KIND OF PERSON, BUT IT WILL BE HARD FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN SOMEDAY THAT THE MONEY HAS RUN OUT.

demonocracy.info

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:22:46am

re: #5 francis

You have no clue what this is all about and as far as my intelligence on the way government works, it doesn’t and that is the problem. Do you run your house on a deficit and misrepresent facts to your family? I DON’T THINK YOUR THAT KIND OF PERSON, BUT IT WILL BE HARD FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN SOMEDAY THAT THE MONEY HAS RUN OUT.

demonocracy.info

You’ve proven by your letters that you have no clue about how government works. Running a household and running a government are two different things. Good grief.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:29:35am

re: #3 jamesfirecat

demonocracy.info

When your debt is more than your GNP there is a problem as in Greece that owes 133% of what their economy is. They are empting people’s bank accounts for the money.re: #1 Joanne

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:32:33am

re: #5 francis

demonocracy.info

Do you ever give a thought to what you post? When you link to a site with a masthead that reads:

DEMON • ocracy.info
^{THE RULE OF DEMONS}

It makes you look totally unhinged.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:36:12am

re: #1 Joanne

The ACA originated in the senate which is a violation of the Constitution. Too bad the court is taking it’s sweet time to hear the case. It won’t matter anyway since the court stated it is ok to lie about your military experience and has taken property for private business. The court is as political as the government.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:36:43am

re: #8 CuriousLurker

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:38:32am

re: #8 CuriousLurker

The information is true, so what does it matter who site it is. Are the sites you post only the right and good?

Pie-onist Overlord Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:42:02am

re: #11 francis

The information is true, so what does it matter who site it is. Are the sites you post only the right and good?

How do you know the “information is true” if you only saw it on a nutjob site? There is a reason why we avoid using “information” from these sources. If it is “true” then find a more reliable source to back it up.

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:43:28am

re: #10 francis

cato.org

ROFLOL—that’s not making it any better.

re: #11 francis

The information is true, so what does it matter who site it is. Are the sites you post only the right and good?

If I need to explain to you why it matters, then there’s really no point in trying to have a conversation with you (but I already knew that).

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:46:49am

re: #13 CuriousLurker

ROFLOL—that’s not making it any better.

If I need to explain to you why it matters, then there’s really no point in trying to have a conversation with you (but I already knew that).

Did you catch at the bottom of that Cato article by Lambert in the “readings” section? American Thinker. ROFLMAO!

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:52:06am

Demonocracy’s Facebook page shows that it is a basic Paulbot site. Also posts goldbug videos.

Are you a Libertarian, francis?

Are you opposed to the Federal Reserve system?

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:56:47am

There’s also a ‘bitcoin block’ number on the bottom of each page of Demonocracy’s website.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:57:23am

re: #16 wrenchwench

There’s also a ‘bitcoin block’ number on the bottom of each of Demonocracy’s website.

What does that mean?

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:57:42am

re: #15 wrenchwench

Demonocracy’s Facebook page shows that it is a basic Paulbot site. Also posts goldbug videos.

Are you a Libertarian, francis?

Are you opposed to the Federal Reserve system?

Gladiator movies?

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:59:02am

re: #17 Sionainn

What does that mean?

I think it means that website has either paid or has been paid in Bitcoins for something. 3 transactions, according to some of those links at google.

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 4, 2013 9:59:27am

re: #16 wrenchwench

There’s also a ‘bitcoin block’ number on the bottom of each page of Demonocracy’s website.

Sucks to be them—Bitcoin took a hit when Dread Pirate Roberts was busted.

The Ghost of a Flea Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:10:10am

October 3, 2013

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

Here in the Phantom Zone, time is fuzzy and cause and effect are frequently non-linear, but I feel I have to ask you why you haven’t kneeled before Zod? If it wasn’t for the flaws in your governance style, the Kryptonian general wouldn’t have had to systematically murder the citizenry of Normal, Illinois by throwing bottlenose dolphins at them.
Certainly, it’s wrong of the General to creatively murder a town each hour his demands are not met, but isn’t the simple solution to just succumb and let him do what he wants?

EPR-radar Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:12:07am

re: #21 The Ghost of a Flea

October 3, 2013

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

Here in the Phantom Zone, time is fuzzy and cause and effect are frequently non-linear, but I feel I have to ask you why you haven’t kneeled before Zod? If it wasn’t for the flaws in your governance style, the Kryptonian general wouldn’t have had to systematically murder the citizenry of Normal, Illinois by throwing bottlenose dolphins at them.
Certainly, it’s wrong of the General to creatively murder a town each hour his demands are not met, but isn’t the simple solution to just succumb and let him do what he wants?

P.S. My bush pig’s name is Boris.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:20:48am

re: #22 EPR-radar

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:26:54am

re: #18 Decatur Deb

The federal reserve is a private corporation never authorized by the federal government. They are keeping the economy from tanking so I would be in favor of them slowing down as the economy grows.

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. One has to help the other within means.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:28:27am

re: #21 The Ghost of a Flea

Good flea and what have you lit up today.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:28:54am

re: #24 francis

The federal reserve is a private corporation never authorized by the federal government. They are keeping the economy from tanking so I would be in favor of them slowing down as the economy grows.

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. One has to help the other within means.

Gee, most everyone is fiscally conservative.

EPR-radar Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:30:28am

re: #26 Sionainn

Gee, most everyone is fiscally conservative.

At least, nobody runs for office saying “we’ll spend like drunken sailors”, even if that’s what they end up doing —- e.g., the W Bush years.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:35:03am

re: #13 CuriousLurker

The information is also available in the NY Times, and is a part of the cbo budget. Maybe you should pay more attention to the content and not the writer. You all obviously think I’m off my rocker when the reality is you can’t figure me out at all. I wonder where you come up with your very biased opinions?

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:35:23am

re: #4 francis

Honey, what you know about the Constitution could maybe thread the eye of a needle. You’re not going along or getting along or anything. You are showing your ignorance.

Read the Constitution. I know readin’ iz haard.

But in all seriousness, you sound like a total goofball. When I say I am laughing at you, I am laughing at you. Not with you. At you.

Enjoy.

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:38:06am

re: #6 Sionainn

You’ve proven by your letters that you have no clue about how government works. Running a household and running a government are two different things. Good grief.

Explaining that to the ignorant is like pissing in the wind.

It makes sense for government to borrow money, especially when the rate is near zero. The whole kitchen table thing is meant to sway the ignorant (like Francis) who have no idea what government is or does, how it works or that it is meant to help its citizens. Not fuck us at every turn like the GOP, Teabaggers, et al., want the uninformed to believe. Government isn’t solely for the rich…it is for We The People, which means all of us.

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:40:24am

re: #9 francis

The ACA originated in the senate which is a violation of the Constitution. Too bad the court is taking it’s sweet time to hear the case. It won’t matter anyway since the court stated it is ok to lie about your military experience and has taken property for private business. The court is as political as the government.

No. It is not a violation for a bill to originate in either chamber. It has to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the Executive.

Jesus fucking Christ.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:41:32am

re: #27 EPR-radar

The facts are Obama has spent more in three years than Bush spent in eight years and that is from the general accounting office. Obamacare in its present form is going to put the country over the edge because he has eliminated the competition in the insurance industry.

Look at the stock market, all the medical stocks are going up because they see the gold mine and who do you think is going to pay in the long run. The Medicare tax was increased .9% and it is not going to stop there.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:41:52am

re: #9 francis

The ACA originated in the senate which is a violation of the Constitution

cato.org

incorrect

francis, you are going to become the poster boy for GULLIBLE

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:42:03am

re: #28 francis

The information is also available in the NY Times, and is a part of the cbo budget. Maybe you should pay more attention to the content and not the writer. You all obviously think I’m off my rocker when the reality is you can’t figure me out at all. I wonder where you come up with your very biased opinions?

If it’s at the NYT, you should link the NYT. A large number of those Ron and Rand Paul fans and anti-Fed nuts are racists and antisemites, and you don’t want to link them without a thorough background check, to avoid being tarred by association with their hate. If you don’t have time to check them, either stick with a reputable source ( like the NYT) or be prepared for us to rake you over the coals.

If we can’t ‘figure you out’ by reading what you post, then what do you suggest?

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:44:34am

re: #22 francis

dailycaller.com
locato.org at this link.

i wrote that post for a reason, francis, and you utterly ignored it and completely changed the subject in your answer

i don’t intend to spend time answering your questions if you don’t pay any attention to my answers

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:48:04am

re: #28 francis

The information is also available in the NY Times, and is a part of the cbo budget. Maybe you should pay more attention to the content and not the writer. You all obviously think I’m off my rocker when the reality is you can’t figure me out at all. I wonder where you come up with your very biased opinions?

The MB, but only when they’re telling the truth. //

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:48:34am

re: #24 francis

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. One has to help the other within means.

What you are is stupid. The ACPPA saves money both short and long term. It gets people preventative care which allows costs to go down by having people able to go to a doctor when they are well, get physicals, find problems and hopefully fix them before they become major (read: cost intensive). It removes the ER from being an outrageously expensive alternative to going to a doctor.

The government shutdown costs an outrageous amount of taxpayer dollars. The government cannot buy in bulk in many instances which drives costs up for what they do buy.

The government shutdown also costs in terms of economic activity, things like consumer confidence, ability to spend, etc. To the tune of half a million dollars a day. The government is a major source of private industry revenue. Having this shutdown is going to cost private sector jobs because the government drives many things.

You’re full of shit when you say you are fiscally conservative. You are fiscally ignorant, as ignorant as you are of the basic tenets of the US Government and how it operates. In a country you supposedly love.

What’s worse, no matter who shows or tells you anything, you believe bullshit. In other words, you fit the Teabagger mentality perfectly. Whether you’re a bagger or not, that is your mentality. Dumb and proud of it.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:51:42am

francis, read the daily caller article you linked -

the substance of the article does not match what it claims in the headline

insurance is not “wiped out” - the companies cited will simply not list their plans on the exchange at the competitive rates required there

the cato link does not work

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:54:54am

I’m convinced some intern at the WH now has a drinking game with these.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:56:58am

re: #30 Joanne

How dumb are you, we the people are paying the bill and the rich are getting richer. It is you the people who are getting most the money back and the government is doing their share of waste fraud and mismanagement.

It is ok to borrow money for project, but it isn’t ok to borrow money when you have exceed the gross national product. 17 trillion is over the gross nation product. At some point we have to start paying the principle back.

My generation and the few following are mostly responsible for this mess and the politicians went along with it to get reelected. We should all fess up and help stabilize the situation or the younger generations will pay the supreme price as they are with the ACA. Without their enrollment the ACA will collapse and that comes straight from Obama.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:57:34am

headline

Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans

substance

a number of insurers will not offer their plans on the aca exchange

as far as i know, insurers are still free to offer plans that are not listed on the exchanges

here is a description of the aca exchanges that i found:

The state-level exchanges, one of the essential tenets of the health reform law, are marketplaces where multiple insurers will compete to provide health plans. Each state and the District of Columbia will have its own insurance exchange, and all of the plans offered within them will be required to offer a set of “essential benefits” to ensure they’re not too skimpy. Along with Obamacare’s optional Medicaid expansion, the exchanges are the vehicle that will extend insurance to the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured.

The important thing to understand about the exchanges is that they intend to provide coverage only to the people who can’t get it elsewhere — such as through their job, or through another federal program like Medicaid — and they’ll extend federal subsidies to help those people afford the cost of buying that coverage. Americans earning annual incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in other words, up to $94,000 for a family of four) will qualify for federal assistance to help them buy plans on the marketplace.

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:59:55am

re: #7 francis

demonocracy.info

When your debt is more than your GNP there is a problem as in Greece that owes 133% of what their economy is. They are empting people’s bank accounts for the money.

If you think the debt is so large that we need to actively address it do you support cutting funding (if so where) or raising taxes ( if so on whome?)

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:00:13am

re: #40 francis

How dumb are you, we the people are paying the bill and the rich are getting richer. It is you the people who are getting most the money back and the government is doing their share of waste fraud and mismanagement.

It is ok to borrow money for project, but it isn’t ok to borrow money when you have exceed the gross national product. 17 trillion is over the gross nation product. At some point we have to start paying the principle back.

tell me francis - when has the united states government ever paid down the national debt?

we pay the interest, we cash in the t-bills, but the net amount of the national debt has never, never been paid down

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:00:19am

re: #31 Joanne

No. It is not a violation for a bill to originate in either chamber. It has to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the Executive.

Jesus fucking Christ.

They are trying to go with the argument that since Roberts declared the mandate was a “tax,” that now the law is unconstitutional because bills raising revenue must originate in the House. It’s a bullshit argument.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:01:32am

re: #34 wrenchwench

I don’t follow Rand or Ron Paul or Ted Cruz. I was in business long enough to see the signs of fiscal trouble and lived long enough to know this younger generation isn’t going to be happy about footing the bill. They will need everyone to help including the extreme nuts on the left and the right.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:02:45am

re: #40 francis

How dumb are you, we the people are paying the bill and the rich are getting richer. It is you the people who are getting most the money back and the government is doing their share of waste fraud and mismanagement.

It is ok to borrow money for project, but it isn’t ok to borrow money when you have exceed the gross national product. 17 trillion is over the gross nation product. At some point we have to start paying the principle back.

My generation and the few following are mostly responsible for this mess and the politicians went along with it to get reelected. We should all fess up and help stabilize the situation or the younger generations will pay the supreme price as they are with the ACA. Without their enrollment the ACA will collapse and that comes straight from Obama.

and why does the national debt only become important when programs YOU DON’T LIKE are being discussed?

by the way, you are very ignorant here because despite all of the time you spend thinking about obamacare you have never bothered to find out that it is designed to be REVENUE NEUTRAL

that is, in case you are not able to figure out the meaning of the phrase, IT IS DESIGNED TO NOT ADD TO THE NATIONAL DEBT

Pie-onist Overlord Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:03:12am

Linking to all of these shit sites can do some damage to Charles’ adsense account. That’s why we normally use the Google cache instead of direct linking to some whackjob site.

Pie-onist Overlord Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:04:44am

re: #32 francis

The facts are Obama has spent more in three years than Bush spent in eight years and that is from the general accounting office.

No that is NOT a fact, it’s complete bullshit.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:05:05am

francis is serving as our misinformation aggregator and gullibility specimen

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:07:22am

re: #45 francis

I don’t follow Rand or Ron Paul or Ted Cruz. I was in business long enough to see the signs of fiscal trouble and lived long enough to know this younger generation isn’t going to be happy about footing the bill. They will need everyone to help including the extreme nuts on the left and the right.

the whole time you were running your equipment supply company you never borrowed money to expand or get the business over a rough spot?

if so, your running accounts were more in balance than the overwhelming majority of really large successful businesses that ever existed

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:09:21am

re: #38 dog philosopher

Aetna the largest insurer has pulled out of many states. The ACA gives the employers a clear path to dump insurance coverage on their employees and many are doing it. The government is paying 72% of federal employees insurance and if they go under the ACA most of them will not get subsidies.
The companies will save tremendous amounts of money even if they pay the fines and the burden for the shortfall will go on the people. town governments are considering doing the same thing to help with their school budgets. Wake up America>

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:10:42am

re: #45 francis

As a member of the younger generation, I would kindly like to tell you that your ‘concern’ for us is frankly bullshit.

It stinks to high heaven of “I got mine, but oh no, now the debt, so we can’t afford to do any of that for you.”

Also, young people are one of the primary beneficiaries of the ACA as it stands now. The recession has not been kind to us. Finding a job? Hah. Finding a job that includes health insurance? For WAY TOO MANY young people, that’s currently a pipe dream.

You might not realize it, living in NJ where they did this before the ACA, but nationally, young people have been able to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until 26. That’s huge. With the exchanges now open, they also know that it will be possible to find an insurance plan at a price they can afford, even if their job doesn’t include it. Also huge.

Young people get sick too. Sure, there are the idiots out there who think they’re invincible, but there’s also a lot of us who realize that when you get hit by a bus, that is expensive.

So, in summation, please stop pretending you give a shit about “the younger generation” because really, you don’t.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:14:13am

re: #51 francis

Aetna the largest insurer has pulled out of many states.

insurance companies never made business decisions about how and where they are providing coverage before?

also, all the other items in the article are only about companies declining to offer particular plans on the exchange - not pull them entirely

The ACA gives the employers a clear path to dump insurance coverage on their employees and many are doing it.

and this should be good for business because it frees them from insurance costs and puts individuals on tax subsidized insurance like most of the rest of the developed world

do you realize that companies in britain, germany and china have a competitive advantage over american companies because they don’t have to pay insurance costs for employees?

The companies will save tremendous amounts of money even if they pay the fines and the burden for the shortfall will go on the people. town governments are considering doing the same thing to help with their school budgets.

i would answer this if it made any sense

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:14:21am

re: #44 Sionainn

The original argument was a fine that turned into a tax and it may a be a bullshit argument to you but it has legal merit and is arguable. Do we follow the Constitution or not? It is a technical point, but one that could change things. Only spending bill can generate from congress or don’t you listen to Obama.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:18:08am

Aetna the largest insurer has pulled out of many states

aetna has a profit structure that is not competitive in the modern marketplace and is giving up opportunities to compete in many markets, leaving them to more efficient companies

you might notice that packard and studebaker have “pulled out of many states” as well - companies come and go, francis, and it isn’t a tragedy for the rest of us

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:20:35am

re: #54 francis

The original argument was a fine that turned into a tax and it may a be a bullshit argument to you but it has legal merit and is arguable. Do we follow the Constitution or not? It is a technical point, but one that could change things. Only spending bill can generate from congress or don’t you listen to Obama.

Somehow I don’t think the Supreme Court would make a decision that “this law is constitutional given situation X” if situation X makes the bill unconstitutional for a different reason.

Do you think the Supreme Court would not be aware of this argument Franis and if they cared about it why would they have voted for Obamacare to be constitutional?

The only way this argument could possibly pass muster in the Supreme Court is for them to admit they don’t understand what is constitutional and what is not.

I don’t imagine them doing that for some reason…

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:20:47am

re: #54 francis

The original argument was a fine that turned into a tax and it may a be a bullshit argument to you but it has legal merit and is arguable. Do we follow the Constitution or not? It is a technical point, but one that could change things. Only spending bill can generate from congress or don’t you listen to Obama.

now you are demonstrating that you are ignorant of the normal course of legislation

don’t you think that if aca had been submitted for legislation in contravention of the constitution that somebody on capitol hill might have realized that and done something about it? really??

do you ever get embarrassed when you find that you have asserted things that are not true?

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:21:35am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

Somehow I don’t think the Supreme Court would make a decision that “this law is constitutional given situation X” if situation X makes the bill unconstitutional for a different reason.

Do you think the Supreme Court would not be aware of this argument Franis and if they cared about it why would they have voted for Obamacare to be constitutional?

The only way this argument could possibly pass muster in the Supreme Court is for them to admit they don’t understand what is constitutional and what is not.

I don’t imagine them doing that for some reason…

francis and some of his friends are the only people in the united states who have figure this out i guess ////

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:23:46am

The ACA gives the employers a clear path to dump insurance coverage on their employees and many are doing it

but yesterday you were saying that you thought obamacare should be structured like medicare or canadian single payer

but when this starts to happen you mention it as if it was a bad thing

have you ever tried to collect all the parts of your argument together to see if they are consistent with each other?

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:24:01am

re: #52 klys

You are on smoke. I have 5 grandchildren and two children and I am concerned about young people. It really strokes you the wrong way when someone like me does care what happens to other people. You think you have the lock on poor me.

There are no jobs because business are finding they can do more with less employees and the technical skills they require are not here so the govt. issues technical visa.
Children were always allowed to stay on family insurance while they were in college. Most of them found jobs when they graduated and got their own insurance.

Don’t presume you know what I care about. Your problem is you have to hang a label on everyone and everything.

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:24:18am

re: #9 francis

The ACA originated in the senate which is a violation of the Constitution.

OFFS, your ignorance is cringe-inducing. From the Library of Congress:

How Our Laws Are Made > IV. Forms of Congressional Action

Bills

A bill is the form used for most legislation, whether permanent or temporary, general or special, public or private.

The form of a House bill is as follows:

A BILL

For the establishment, etc. [as the title may be].

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, etc.

The enacting clause was prescribed by law in 1871 and is identical in all bills, whether they originate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.

Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose, or concur with, amendments. By tradition, general appropriation bills also originate in the House of Representatives. […]

Download the entire document in PDF format.

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:26:55am

re: #44 Sionainn

They are trying to go with the argument that since Roberts declared the mandate was a “tax,” that now the bill is unconstitutional because bills raising revenue must originate in the House. It’s a bullshit argument.

Exactly, they’re trying to make it retroactively unconstitutional.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:28:33am

re: #60 francis

So you care about young people, but you would rather the ACA go away until single-payer can get passed (ignoring the reality that single-payer will never happen in the current political climate and therefore leaving young people with no ACA and no single-payer).

I know how it was “supposed” to work but the reality is that a college education no longer guarantees finding a job on graduation. I am dealing with the reality of now. So if one of us is “on smoke” I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

When forced to consider the difference between your words and the actions you advocate, I find that actions, as they frequently do, speak louder than words.

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:29:11am

re: #58 dog philosopher

francis and some of his friends are the only people in the united states who have figure this out i guess ////

Based on their JD’s from Lawyers We Iz U.

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:29:13am

re: #45 francis

I don’t follow Rand or Ron Paul or Ted Cruz. I was in business long enough to see the signs of fiscal trouble and lived long enough to know this younger generation isn’t going to be happy about footing the bill. They will need everyone to help including the extreme nuts on the left and the right.

You promote the Pauls by linking to sites that promote them and their views. If you link to stuff you don’t believe, you’re misleading us about your beliefs.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:30:23am

re: #60 francis

You are on smoke. I have 5 grandchildren and two children and I am concerned about young people. It really strokes you the wrong way when someone like me does care what happens to other people. You think you have the lock on poor me.

There are no jobs because business are finding they can do more with less employees and the technical skills they require are not here so the govt. issues technical visa.
Children were always allowed to stay on family insurance while they were in college. Most of them found jobs when they graduated and got their own insurance.

Don’t presume you know what I care about. Your problem is you have to hang a label on everyone and everything.

if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:31:39am

re: #59 dog philosopher

have you ever tried to collect all the parts of your argument together to see if they are consistent with each other?

No, it’s much better to bitch about whatever is going through the sieve that is his brain. Consistency for the brain dead is so very taxing.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:31:49am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

James, they looked at the personal mandate. They will only rule on the law suit brought before them. They do not authorize the constitutionally of any law that is not brought before them. The potential problem is there is 5 conservatives on the court and if they have to rule on the law you could lose. Look what happened to voters rights. They could rule on 20 different law suits and find the law to be constitutional, but if they find one that isn’t they can declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress.

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:31:58am

Oy, the wingnuttery is making my head ache. I’m done here. Laters.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:32:27am

re: #66 dog philosopher

if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen

Apparently I didn’t use small enough words the first time to explain why being able to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 was a good thing for young people.

I thought recession + no jobs + no jobs with health insurance was pretty clear, but I guess not, since apparently all the college graduates I know who haven’t been able to find jobs with health insurance and therefore are relying on that provision don’t exist.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:33:25am

re: #68 francis

James, they looked at the personal mandate. They will only rule on the law suit brought before them. They do not authorize the constitutionally of any law that is not brought before them. The potential problem is there is 5 conservatives on the court and if they have to rule on the law you could lose. Look what happened to voters rights. They could rule on 20 different law suits and find the law to be constitutional, but if they find one that isn’t they can declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress.

then let somebody bring suit

nobody has

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:33:40am

re: #68 francis

James, they looked at the personal mandate. They will only rule on the law suit brought before them. They do not authorize the constitutionally of any law that is not brought before them. The potential problem is there is 5 conservatives on the court and if they have to rule on the law you could lose. Look what happened to voters rights. They could rule on 20 different law suits and find the law to be constitutional, but if they find one that isn’t they can declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress.

First of all Franics before they can rule on it, somebody needs to bring suit.

Can you find me any links to someone who is suing the ACA for being unconstitutional because of this particular problem?

Also Francis does this mean we can count on you to vote democratic in the next presidential election?

I mean you clearly have problems with the way the conservative judges have ruled so you don’t want to see more of them get appointed right?

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:35:02am

re: #61 CuriousLurker

What part did you miss about raising revenue. Obama even stated the congress must start with the CR bill for it to go anywhere. The CR bill should be in conference right now.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:35:41am

re: #54 francis

The original argument was a fine that turned into a tax and it may a be a bullshit argument to you but it has legal merit and is arguable. Do we follow the Constitution or not? It is a technical point, but one that could change things. Only spending bill can generate from congress or don’t you listen to Obama.

There’s nothing unconstitutional about the ACA. I’m not surprised that the usual suspects are flinging anything and everything at the wall to see if anything will stick…just like the birthers and the homophobes with regard to all their filings in the courts.

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:37:09am

re: #70 klys

Equally important is making sure insurance companies can’t throw you to the wolves if you have a preexisting condition.. like acne. Get cancer ? Nope, sorry, no insurance for you. You lied about having acne 30 years ago.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:37:31am

re: #73 francis

What part did you miss about raising revenue. Obama even stated the congress must start with the CR bill for it to go anywhere. The CR bill should be in conference right now.

You do know that Congress includes both the House and the Senate?

It seems you are using Congress when you mean to specify one of the two, but your arguments are so incoherent I can’t really tell.

Pie-onist Overlord Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:38:34am

Teh Stupid is getting on my last nerve.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:38:49am

re: #61 CuriousLurker

OFFS, your ignorance is cringe-inducing. From the Library of Congress:

The enacting clause was prescribed by law in 1871 and is identical in all bills, whether they originate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.

Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose, or concur with, amendments. By tradition, general appropriation bills also originate in the House of Representatives.

Download the entire document in PDF format.

I was going to post this earlier, but figured why waste my time when Francis clearly won’t read and learn something.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:40:03am

francis, a little thought experiment for you to think about:

let’s say somebody starts a business selling hamburgers. they find that to make a profit in that particular situation, they need to pay their employees less than $2/hr

well, that’s against the law, right?

so, they complain that they “can’t stay in business under these oppressive, anti-business laws”. tough, you are not allowed to exploit your employees in this country

them’s the rules

they counter “these people were willing to work for less than $2/hr - we didn’t force them”

the fact is that you took advantage of the fact that they were desperate enough to work for slave wages. you are not allowed to exploit your employees in this country

them’s the rules

now we have companies crying that obamacare is gonna make it more difficult to make a profit. some of these companies, like for example walmart, notorious make some of the largest profits in the world, but their employees will suffer because obamacare might cut their gigantor profit margin some

but the law says they must offer insurance to their employees. you are not allowed to exploit your employees in this country

them’s the rules

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:40:30am

…

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:41:26am

re: #72 jamesfirecat

washingtontimes.com

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:41:56am

re: #76 klys

You do know that Congress includes both the House and the Senate?

It seems you are using Congress when you mean to specify one of the two, but your arguments are so incoherent I can’t really tell.

This. Exactly.

He has not one iota of understanding of how our government functions. It should be massively embarrassing, but not for Francis. He’s letting that flag fly free.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:42:47am

re: #81 francis

washingtontimes.com

in this article it says this:

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:43:26am

re: #81 francis

washingtontimes.com

And as for voting democrat so we can get more liberals on the Supreme Court?

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:43:26am

re: #68 francis

James, they looked at the personal mandate. They will only rule on the law suit brought before them. They do not authorize the constitutionally of any law that is not brought before them. The potential problem is there is 5 conservatives on the court and if they have to rule on the law you could lose. Look what happened to voters rights. They could rule on 20 different law suits and find the law to be constitutional, but if they find one that isn’t they can declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress.

You are assuming that the Supreme Court will even take up the issue. My guess…not going to happen.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:43:27am

re: #76 klys

I will refer to congress as the house and the senate as the senate in the future.

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:44:20am

re: #83 dog philosopher

in this article it says this:

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

futhermore

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

generally, francis, it is advisable to read articles before posting links to them

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:44:30am

re: #70 klys

Apparently I didn’t use small enough words the first time to explain why being able to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 was a good thing for young people.

I thought recession + no jobs + no jobs with health insurance was pretty clear, but I guess not, since apparently all the college graduates I know who haven’t been able to find jobs with health insurance and therefore are relying on that provision don’t exist.

…and it’s not just young people not being able to find jobs with insurance. There are a lot of older people who are unemployed or underemployed and without insurance because they haven’t hit the age for Medicare.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:44:41am

re: #86 francis

I will refer to congress as the house and the senate as the senate in the future.

The House of Representatives is referred to as the House.

The Senate is referred to as the Senate.

BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER are Congress.

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:45:21am

re: #79 dog philosopher

What’s worse in the case of Walmart is how they council their employees how to get food stamps, Medicaid, etc. so We The People subsidize the Walton family’s billions in profits.

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:49:25am

re: #79 dog philosopher

dog the ACA states that if they do not make insurance available they will be fined 2000.00 dollars and it is cheaper to pay the fine then to provide the insurance. This is why they are dropping coverage for the employees because it is cheaper to pay the fine, them’s the rule.

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:49:26am

re: #72 jamesfirecat

First of all Franics before they can rule on it, somebody needs to bring suit.

Can you find me any links to someone who is suing the ACA for being unconstitutional because of this particular problem?

Also Francis does this mean we can count on you to vote democratic in the next presidential election?

I mean you clearly have problems with the way the conservative judges have ruled so you don’t want to see more of them get appointed right?

Here’s the wingnuts in Texas doing so.

Link

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:51:37am

re: #91 francis

dog the ACA states that if they do not make insurance available they will be fined 2000.00 dollars and it is cheaper to pay the fine then to provide the insurance. This is why they are dropping coverage for the employees because it is cheaper to pay the fine, them’s the rule.

So you’re sayings we need to start fining these organizations more?

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:52:28am

re: #87 dog philosopher

Dog, then why would the pacific foundation start the law suit? There are two sides to the argument and they will be heard.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:53:39am

re: #94 francis

If you think someone filing a lawsuit makes their argument legit, I’m afraid there’s not much help we can offer.

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:54:44am

re: #94 francis

Dog, then why would the pacific foundation start the law suit? There are two sides to the argument and they will be heard.

Yes they will.

I trust that means we can count on you to vote democratic in presidential elections so that when the conservative justices retire we can replace them with liberal ones who would not set new legal precedent just because it suits their partisan desires?

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:55:19am

re: #90 Joanne

Business gives people jobs, not life support.

EPR-radar Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:56:41am

re: #94 francis

Dog, then why would the pacific foundation start the law suit? There are two sides to the argument and they will be heard.

I grow tired of this “two sides to the argument” crap.

When considering the composition of the moon, ‘rock’ and ‘green cheese’ are not two alternatives to be given equal consideration by TV talking heads.

When considering science education, evolution and creationism/ID are not ‘two viewpoints of a story’.

In politics, present-day Democrats and Republicans do not provide two alternatives between which a worthy compromise can be struck, because the GOP is collectively insane.

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:57:06am

re: #97 francis

First time I’ve seen a living wage described as life support.

100

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:58:28am

re: #96 jamesfirecat

You can count on me supporting the best candidate, not someone who has never sat on the bench. I would like to vote for a person who has the title Judge and that is all. Liberal or conservative isn’t important, just their record.

101

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:59:39am

re: #100 francis

You do know we don’t get to vote for the Supreme Court judges, right? We get to vote for the President, who nominates them, and members of the Senate, who approve the nomination.

102

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:59:54am

re: #81 francis

washingtontimes.com

It was dismissed.

103

francis Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:00:10pm

re: #98 EPR-radar

I guess your not married. I have to go guys it has been great.

104

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:01:50pm

re: #95 klys

If you think someone filing a lawsuit makes their argument legit, I’m afraid there’s not much help we can offer.

LOL. Orly comes to mind.

105

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:02:26pm

re: #94 francis

Dog, then why would the pacific foundation start the law suit? There are two sides to the argument and they will be heard.

I looked at the Pacific Legal Foundation and the types of lawsuits they file. They seem to be the anti-ACLU.

106

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:03:18pm

re: #100 francis

You can count on me supporting the best candidate, not someone who has never sat on the bench. I would like to vote for a person who has the title Judge and that is all. Liberal or conservative isn’t important, just their record.

So you don’t think the Supreme Court has become overly polarized recently?

I think the court with railings like citizens united and their decision on the 14th amendment stripping much of its bite show they will put politics ahead of what is actually constitutional/good for America.

To say nothing of the chance of a challenge to Roe V Wade.

Because of this the only reasonable thing to do is to pack the Supreme Court with as many Liberals as possible, and the way to do that is to elect democratic presidents, and senators.

107

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:07:06pm

re: #101 klys

You do know we don’t get to vote for the Supreme Court judges, right? We get to vote for the President, who nominates them, and members of the Senate, who approve the nomination.

That one made me… I just… O_o

108

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:08:47pm

re: #107 CuriousLurker

That one made me… I just… O_o

I know. But after needing to clarify that Congress and the House of Representatives are not equivalent (ONE IS A SUBSET OF THE OTHER), I figure I’ll make sure he understands how the Supreme Court gets their jobs.

Maybe I should write a letter to the poor intern every day. And include a different cocktail recipe in each.

109

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:10:13pm

re: #94 francis

Dog, then why would the pacific foundation start the law suit? There are two sides to the argument and they will be heard.

good for them - there is nothing wrong with filing a lawsuit

but it doesn’t mean that they are right or that they will win

BTW, if they are successful, there is also the principle of ‘severability’ (i believe it’s called) which states that it is possible to strip a bill of unconstitutional parts and leave the rest, if it can be shown that the parts that remain can still function as intended if the other parts are stripped out

it seems to me that the parts originally intended as ‘fees’, which justice roberts declared to be ‘taxes’, could be removed without gutting the rest of aca

110

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:12:52pm

re: #102 Sionainn

It was dismissed.

The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a “Bill[] for raising Revenue,” and thus the plaintiff’s Origination Clause challenge lik
ewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event,
even if the individual mandate were a “Bill[] for raising Revenue,” the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that “originated in the
House of Representatives” and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause

so there you go

111

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:14:17pm

re: #97 francis

Business gives people jobs, not life support.

this answer does not address the issue, francis

112

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:15:51pm

re: #110 dog philosopher

The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a “Bill[] for raising Revenue,” and thus the plaintiff’s Origination Clause challenge lik
ewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event,
even if the individual mandate were a “Bill[] for raising Revenue,” the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that “originated in the
House of Representatives” and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause

so there you go

Do you really think Francis is going to read the link or even what you posted and recognize that it’s dismissed?

113

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:21:20pm

re: #99 klys

First time I’ve seen a living wage described as life support.

No shit.

114

Joanne Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:24:35pm

re: #111 dog philosopher

this answer does not address the issue, francis

That being the point.

Sociopathy at its finest. IGMFY lives to annoy another day.

115

klys Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:27:50pm

re: #114 Joanne

That being the point.

Sociopathy at its finest. IGMFY lives to annoy another day.

But he gets mad if you try to say that’s what’s happening here.

116

CuriousLurker Fri, Oct 4, 2013 12:35:07pm

re: #108 klys

I know. But after needing to clarify that Congress and the House of Representatives are not equivalent (ONE IS A SUBSET OF THE OTHER), I figure I’ll make sure he understands how the Supreme Court gets their jobs.

Exactly. It totally sounded like he thinks we vote on SCOTUS appointments—I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. Ditto for:

I will refer to congress as the house….

lolwut? Okay, since we’re renaming things, from now on I’ll refer to all fruit collectively as oranges and any other fruits by their respective names—apples will be apples, grapes will be grapes, etcetera, however any reference to oranges could mean only oranges or all fruit—got it?

If you people can’t keep up with WTF I’m talking about based on my internal personal dictionary, then it’s your problem, not mine.

Maybe I should write a letter to the poor intern every day. And include a different cocktail recipe in each.

LOL

117

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 4, 2013 1:27:18pm

re: #44 Sionainn

They are trying to go with the argument that since Roberts declared the mandate was a “tax,” that now the law is unconstitutional because bills raising revenue must originate in the House. It’s a bullshit argument.

If only Obamacare had made it to the Supreme Court, where they could rule on its constitutionality.

118

Sionainn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:05:06pm

re: #117 Decatur Deb

If only Obamacare had made it to the Supreme Court, where they could rule on its constitutionality.

*chuckles*

119

dog philosopher Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:08:24pm

re: #114 Joanne

That being the point.

Sociopathy at its finest. IGMFY lives to annoy another day.

francis also seems to be under the impression that only lawsuits with merit are allowed to be filed

also, that things posted on one web page must be true if you believe them - “see, somebody said that on a web page!!”

120

EPR-radar Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:57:35pm

re: #32 francis

The facts are Obama has spent more in three years than Bush spent in eight years and that is from the general accounting office. Obamacare in its present form is going to put the country over the edge because he has eliminated the competition in the insurance industry.

Look at the stock market, all the medical stocks are going up because they see the gold mine and who do you think is going to pay in the long run. The Medicare tax was increased .9% and it is not going to stop there.

Down ding for a lie. Prove that the CBO has shown more spending in 3 years of the Obama term (I’ll let even let you pick any three years of the term) than in eight years under Bush.

In case basic language and math skills are a problem, let me be more clear.

Your claim is that B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 + B5 + B6 + B7 + B8 > O1 + O2 + O3

where B1 … B8 are federal yearly expenses under W Bush, and O1 … O3 are any three federal yearly expenses under Obama.

I claim this is false.

To make this even more clear, showing O1 > B8, O2 > B8 and O3 > B8 is not an answer.

121

EPR-radar Fri, Oct 4, 2013 4:20:30pm

re: #120 EPR-radar

Oops.

Should be B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 + B5 + B6 + B7 + B8 < O1 + O2 + O3

in #120.

122

majii Fri, Oct 4, 2013 10:18:06pm

I have taken so many graduate level econ, history, foreign policy, international relations, sociology, psychology, and other courses, francis, that they fairly ooze out of every pore of my being. You’ve either been lying shamelessly, are very uninformed or you’re incapable of understanding what you’ve read, use poor, and biased, sources for information-gathering, or it’s all of these. I think the last sentence is the correct answer. I and many others here at LGFs have tried to educate you, but you refuse to learn anything. This informs me that you have an authoritarian personality and a whole lot of pride which won’t allow you to admit when you’ve been bested. You’re out of your league here, francis. You’re dealing with a highly educated group of individuals and attempting to sell us BS wrapped in gold foil that you’re marketing as the best Belgian chocolates. Give up. You will never convince us that you possess even a rudimentary understanding of how the federal government operates, how our healthcare system operates, or anything about economics—micro-or-macro.

Also, francis, the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress. The same act of Congress which established the Federal Reserve also established the federal reserve system. (Note: You need to study the history of the federal reserve to understand why we needed a federal reserve system in the first place.)

“The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act.”
en.wikipedia.org

francis, one can either make a fool of him/herself, or permit others to make a fool of him/her. It appears that where the federal reserve system is concerned, the latter has occurred in your case.

I taught economics for many years, francis, and it gets on my very last nerve hearing a supposedly adult, and mature, individual who is allowed to vote, make such an asinine statement as “the federal reserve was not set up by the government,” when it most certainly was. It was created by Congress, just like the IRS, the EPA (thank Nixon for signing the bill that created the EPA), the Justice Department, FEMA, and every other federal agency in existence today.

There’s a cure for such gross ignorance as you display here everyday, francis, and it’s known as researching the things you don’t know, or maybe, you could benefit by auditing some college level econ, history, and foreign policy courses, since you’ve stated that you are
retired.

123

francis Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:16:12am

re: #122 majii

Well you are correct and when I make a mistake I do stand corrected, so Mr. above common sense and ignorance, what will happen when the money runs out or becomes worthless? Does it make sense to owe more money than the Gross National Product?

You are right, I don’t have the research skills you have, but I know when milk cost 2.00 and you only have 1.75 there is a problem. I know that when 44 million people are on food stamps there is a problem. I know when the country is 26th in the world in education there is a problem. I know when people have to rely on the government more than on themselves there is a problem. I know that when children with cancer can’t be treated because politicians are ply games, there is a problem. Maybe I don’t dot my I’s or cross my T’s, but I can see problems that the intelligent world can’t seem to solve. Maybe there is some merit in being ignorant.

124

dog philosopher Sat, Oct 5, 2013 1:10:29am

re: #123 francis

Well you are correct and when I make a mistake I do stand corrected, so Mr. above common sense and ignorance, what will happen when the money runs out or becomes worthless? Does it make sense to owe more money than the Gross National Product?

You are right, I don’t have the research skills you have, but I know when milk cost 2.00 and you only have 1.75 there is a problem. I know that when 44 million people are on food stamps there is a problem. I know when the country is 26th in the world in education there is a problem. I know when people have to rely on the government more than on themselves there is a problem. I know that when children with cancer can’t be treated because politicians are ply games, there is a problem. Maybe I don’t dot my I’s or cross my T’s, but I can see problems that the intelligent world can’t seem to solve. Maybe there is some merit in being ignorant.

bravo! you have noticed that there are serious problems!

thank you so much for pointing that out

125

dog philosopher Sat, Oct 5, 2013 1:26:00am

re: #123 francis

Maybe there is some merit in being ignorant.

well you know francis there is fancy education, there is a sharp mind, there is common sense, and there is facts. they all are different aspects of intelligence, and they’re all different. different people have them in different degrees

now, i have the benefit of a fancy education, you know, art history and stuff like that. it isn’t very useful but it keeps me entertained. as for having a sharp mind, i’m not terribly impressed with myself in this regard - sometimes i wonder just how stupid i can be. as far as common sense is concerned, i reckon i do a little better perhaps

but as for facts, i stuff myself with them as fast as i can manage.

i remember at a job i had once i sometimes said “oh goddammit there i go being stupid again” and my buddy would say “don’t say that!! ignorance is fixable but stupid is forever”

so, francis, i’m afraid you are showing a lot of ignorance and gullibility here. gullibility, obviously, is poor judgement, that is, common sense not functioning that well. my advice would be to be more skeptical of things you read on the internet - eh?

you are right that there are all these people in the world who pass themselves off as being very smart, experts in their field and so on, and the stupid bastards have made a gigantic mess of things. i agree with that part

but that doesn’t mean it’s good to be ignorant

126

dog philosopher Sat, Oct 5, 2013 1:27:49am