• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House

Um, it doesn't matter what the FF's personal feelings were, the document they left behind, as interpreted by the current conservative SC, found that the individual mandate did not violate it.

Further, the individual mandate was an idea championed by the conservative Heritage Foundation for over 2 decades.

This is how far baggers have strayed from their conservative roots.

the individual mandate never even made it past the negotiation stage back then. So it wasn't like there was wide political support for it among conservatives even then. But you are correct, there has been a clear shift in republican politics since then, which is why it's always bizarre when people cite past policy positions, even though they are based on being totally misinformed about what popular positions were actually at that point in time
 
Poor Con, your argument about the constitutionality has failed, your argument about roads has failed, you recognize that the propaganda is the source of negativity before the ACA has even been in effect......and all you can do is to turn into a Texas Tornado and spew anything and everything from your post producing software.

You have no coherent argument, it just bounces from talking point to talking point...never once pausing to reflect upon its errors.

Do you get paid by the post? Do they teach you to ignore data from BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury along with official govt. data on how roads are funded. I know you are a self employed private contractor who employs no one. You spend a lot of time here promoting the Democratic Party which supports my claim that you are a Democratic Operative.

You have proven nothing regarding ACA, roads, the Constitution. Then you make wild claims none of which refute the data and results I post but in your world opinion trumps reality. Guess yours is the only business where you can get paid for looking foolish.
 
FFS, Con! The roads you use to get to national highways.....the local roads, the roads you use 100% of the time, are funded by LOCAL BONDS, not federal tax dollars.

What, is your house's property line against a federal highway, bypassing all state/local roads?

I guess your post generating software did not recognize the argument.....Good grief.

Construction yes, repairs, NO. you need to learn the difference. Local use taxes fund roads, bridges, and infrastructure. Too bad people like you bought the unified budget thus all dollars are the same and thus fund whatever the politicians want.
 
Construction yes, repairs, NO.
http://www.texasahead.org/lga/96-940.pdf


you need to learn the difference. Local use taxes fund roads, bridges, and infrastructure. Too bad people like you bought the unified budget thus all dollars are the same and thus fund whatever the politicians want.

While the Texas House and Senate are busy competing over which chamber can come up with the most funding for public schools, another top priority of state government has taken a back seat — roads. Though roads are needed to get to school, work and make our economy thrive, state lawmakers continue to demonstrate that roads are NOT a top funding priority for state government. Instead, lawmakers are content to push the state’s obligation to fund our state highway system down to the local level by using LOCAL sales tax and property tax to build STATE highway projects.

Senate Bill 1110 that passed the Texas House Thursday will go straight to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk. The bill gives local authorities the ability to use property tax and sales tax to build TOLL projects. So the road would be built with tax money, but Texans would be charged a toll to actually use the road.

DOUBLE TAX: Texas lawmakers vote to use property taxes to build toll roads - WatchdogWire - Texas
 
http://www.texasahead.org/lga/96-940.pdf




While the Texas House and Senate are busy competing over which chamber can come up with the most funding for public schools, another top priority of state government has taken a back seat — roads. Though roads are needed to get to school, work and make our economy thrive, state lawmakers continue to demonstrate that roads are NOT a top funding priority for state government. Instead, lawmakers are content to push the state’s obligation to fund our state highway system down to the local level by using LOCAL sales tax and property tax to build STATE highway projects.

Senate Bill 1110 that passed the Texas House Thursday will go straight to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk. The bill gives local authorities the ability to use property tax and sales tax to build TOLL projects. So the road would be built with tax money, but Texans would be charged a toll to actually use the road.

DOUBLE TAX: Texas lawmakers vote to use property taxes to build toll roads - WatchdogWire - Texas

do you have a point? The state and federal govt. can designate whatever they want to fund by whatever means they want but none of that changes the reality of what the taxes were created to fund and the fact that tax dollars have been wasted due to the unified budgets. You will note that the TX state govt. informed the taxpayers as to what they were going to use for the roads. You haven't refuted anything that I posted
 
do you have a point? The state and federal govt. can designate whatever they want to fund by whatever means they want but none of that changes the reality of what the taxes were created to fund and the fact that tax dollars have been wasted due to the unified budgets. You will note that the TX state govt. informed the taxpayers as to what they were going to use for the roads. You haven't refuted anything that I posted
Yes yes, showing that use taxes do NOT fund 100% of local/state roads in no way counters your claim:

"Roads are funded by the excise taxes on the gasoline you purchase. You really should learn what your taxes fund. If you don't drive you don't pay for the roads"

The music is over, stop dancing.
 
Yes yes, showing that use taxes do NOT fund 100% of local/state roads in no way counters your claim:

"Roads are funded by the excise taxes on the gasoline you purchase. You really should learn what your taxes fund. If you don't drive you don't pay for the roads"

The music is over, stop dancing.

Do you get paid for downright lies or just by the post? Are you telling me that excise taxes on gasoline and diesel don't fund the highway system and repairs? Are you telling me that the unified budget hasn't taken any Federal excise tax dollars and spent that money on items other than roads, bridges, and infrastructure? Why do you care what a state does with its dollars especially states where you don't live? Tell me what Federal Taxes other than Excise taxes as well as other use taxes fund the Federal Highway system repairs?
 
Do you get paid for downright lies or just by the post? Are you telling me that excise taxes on gasoline and diesel don't fund the highway system and repairs? Are you telling me that the unified budget hasn't taken any Federal excise tax dollars and spent that money on items other than roads, bridges, and infrastructure? Why do you care what a state does with its dollars especially states where you don't live? Tell me what Federal Taxes other than Excise taxes as well as other use taxes fund the Federal Highway system repairs?


scary_sketches_16.jpg
 
But we're not talking about that, we're talking about the reasons for wanting to delay the legislation. The Republicans wish to delay it because it works to achieve their political position of repealing Obamacare. The Democrats delaying it does NOT achieve their political position of instituting Obamacare, in fact, it goes against it. The delay for Democrats is to provide fairness to those required to sign up.

That's the alinskey model; when plans that were designed to fail actually fail, they just blame any and all opposition on that failure and so get to double down on the agenda.

Nope. I'm simply speaking in logic and facts and for that you are calling me a liberal/lefty when I most certainly am not. I can only assume then you believe logic and facts to belong exclusively to liberals/leftys.

What you are doing has nothing to do with logic and facts... What you are doing is about corruption and control.

To call you a lefty is an insult to democrats.... You are talking more like an authoritarian communist in the vein of Stalin or Mao.

What does that have to do, in any way, with the discussion we were having? I pointed out how the $640 million number is completely false. That was it.

Was going to have a different response until I read this whole post...

It doesn't matter if the 600 mil was false... When even for 600$ what was provided as a final product was completely unworkable and a failure... So, in typical fashion (and as I had predicted would happen) the blame was laid on the oppositions shoulders.

Let's say you buy a 5$ burger at mcdonalds and The order is wrong, would you accept it of the manager came and told you that it was burger kings fault that your burger was not right?

Well, why would expect that bs to fly in this situation?

Unlike you, I don't believe people should be fired simply because other people didn't do their job. I do not have enough information about where exactly the problems existed to know who dropped the ball.

Why are you so interested in having people fired? Does it make you giddy to know someone's livelihood is ruined, or at the very least, delayed? Does it make you happy to know someone is much less able to provide for their family?

Well, in typical fashion of your type, you are an apologist for corruption and find failure in a job to be acceptable... Perhaps even desirable so long as you can politically use that failure.

I do not take pride in people losing thei jobs or their livelihoods... However I am also deeply against rewarding ineptitude as you clearly are willing to do, and frankly if a person is incapable of performing the job they are paid to do then they should find something more appropriate for them to do...

Yes, I believe that describes the Republican position on shutting down the government over Obamacare quite well.

Good spin.... I****.

Well said.
No, I provided an example of how the total cost was not $640 million for the website on the first day it opened. The fact you're trying to twist words shows you know have a losing position.

Again, to have paid those people for incompetence is a disservice to all competent coders and website developers that take pride in their work and provide a legitimate service and fulfil their contracts on time, on budget, and functioning as expected.


No, you are not being cute, you are acting as a despicable liar... This is getting even worse than what you were accusing from bush not so many years ago... Except now you act as a hypocrite and encourage even worse.

The right idea is to not have the government do its job, put thousands of people in an uncertain position with their job, cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy, put us at risk for a credit downgrade and possibly trigger a worldwide economic collapse?

Wow, if you think that's the right thing to do, then I hope you never become a politician.

When that all happens you will still be incapable of putting the blame in obamas hands where it belongs...
 
What you are doing has nothing to do with logic and facts... What you are doing is about corruption and control.

To call you a lefty is an insult to democrats.... You are talking more like an authoritarian communist in the vein of Stalin or Mao.
:lamo

I'd tell you what you sound like, but it's not worth it.

Was going to have a different response until I read this whole post...

It doesn't matter if the 600 mil was false
Of course it does, it was the reason this part of the discussion even exists.

Well, in typical fashion of your type, you are an apologist for corruption and find failure in a job to be acceptable... Perhaps even desirable so long as you can politically use that failure.
Because I have admitted I don't know where the blame lies, that makes me an apologist for corruption and failure? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

I do not take pride in people losing thei jobs or their livelihoods
And yet, you're wanting heads to roll, despite having very little clue on who was actually to blame.

However I am also deeply against rewarding ineptitude as you clearly are willing to do
Where have I ever advocated rewarding ineptitude? Again, that doesn't make sense.

and frankly if a person is incapable of performing the job they are paid to do then they should find something more appropriate for them to do...
Name the person responsible then. I suppose you could say Sebelius, but she didn't build the website. I suppose you could say Obama, but that'd be beyond stupid to say for reasons I doubt you care about.

So name the person, explain why they deserve to be fired and we'll go from there.

Again, to have paid those people for incompetence is a disservice to all competent coders and website developers that take pride in their work and provide a legitimate service and fulfil their contracts on time, on budget, and functioning as expected.
And, again, you're twisting the conversation to avoid the fact I'm right that the website didn't cost $640 million, which was the comment I responded to which started this discussion.

No, you are not being cute
No, the "cute" was referring to the irony of you deliberately twisting the discussion to avoid acknowledging I was right and then in the very next section of your post, accuse me of spinning.

you are acting as a despicable liar
Name one thing I've lied about. Go ahead, name one thing I lied about in either of my last two posts. I'll wait.
 
Nope. I'm simply speaking in logic and facts and for that you are calling me a liberal/lefty when I most certainly am not. I can only assume then you believe logic and facts to belong exclusively to liberals/leftys.
What does that have to do, in any way, with the discussion we were having? I pointed out how the $640 million number is completely false. That was it.

Well, that doesn't even make sense. Congratulations, you are a liberal.
 
the individual mandate never even made it past the negotiation stage back then. So it wasn't like there was wide political support for it among conservatives even then. But you are correct, there has been a clear shift in republican politics since then, which is why it's always bizarre when people cite past policy positions, even though they are based on being totally misinformed about what popular positions were actually at that point in time

All Republican proposals including the one from the Heritage Foundation had an individual mandate, citing "personal responsibility" as the reason. Dems are the ones that opposed because it would hurt the poor. What happened to personal responsibility? Is it no longer a Right wing issue? Or is it how it seems....
 
Last edited:
All Republican proposals including the one from the Heritage Foundation had an individual mandate, citing "personal responsibility" as the reason. Dems are the ones that opposed because it would hurt the poor. What happened to personal responsibility? Is it no longer a Right wing issue? Or is it how it seems....

Why is it that many of you confuse legal responsibility that is forced on the people by law with personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility is not something you mandate on the people. It is taking responsibility for your actions, accepting the consequences that come from them, and recognizing that your actions affect others. Put in another way, it is a moral obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions. You will note that I said moral obligation, not legal obligation. That is important and should not be overlooked.
 
All Republican proposals including the one from the Heritage Foundation had an individual mandate, citing "personal responsibility" as the reason. Dems are the ones that opposed because it would hurt the poor. What happened to personal responsibility? Is it no longer a Right wing issue? Or is it how it seems....


Only if you would bother doing some research once in awhile:
In 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today (HEART) Act of 1993, which included a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. That provision was to take effect on Jan. 1, 2005 -- more than a decade after the bill would have been enacted.

The bill never made it even to the hearing stage. But Chafee continued to push for an alternative to the Clinton option.

In mid 1994, he and a fellow member of the Senate Finance Committee -- conservative Democrat John Breaux of Louisiana -- worked on a new version that also would have required all Americans to buy insurance....

...We did not find the Chafee-Breaux bill in the THOMAS database of congressional legislation, so it apparently did not receive a formal vote.

The HEART Act attracted 19 Republicans as sponsors or co-sponsors, including Chafee, Bond and Dole, who was then the Senate minority leader, plus a number of ranking Republicans on Senate committees -- Mark Hatfield of Oregon (appropriations), Pete Domenici of New Mexico (budget), John Danforth of Missouri (commerce), Orrin Hatch of Utah (judiciary) and Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas (labor and human resources).

Nineteen Republicans is not a trivial number, and the fact that many members of the Senate Republican leadership signed on is noteworthy. Still, 19 represented less than half of the GOP conference at the time, and the list of co-sponsors includes many of the party’s moderates. The idea was less popular among conservatives in the party. For instance, Nickles, one of the four pictured in the Facebook post, was not a co-sponsor.

The Times, in a June 23, 1994, story on the later Chafee effort, called it the "moderates’" proposal.The newspaper reported that Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, one of the GOP’s leading conservatives, said that any plan that "got his support and that of most Republicans" would not "guarantee anything." And not having a guarantee of coverage would have meant not having an individual mandate.

This jibes with the recollections of Gail Wilensky, a health care economist at Project HOPE, an international health foundation. Wilensky directed Medicare and Medicaid from 1990 to 1992 and served as a senior health adviser to President George H.W. Bush.

"I do not remember Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, embracing individual mandates," Wilensky said.


PolitiFact | Facebook post says Republicans embraced individual mandate in 1993

The bill was always the product of the center right, fiscally conservative elements of the party like Dole and Romney. That doesn't mean it was popular across the party and it certainly wasn't popular with the far right individuals who make up the influential base of the modern GOP. So maybe do some research for once and inform yourself, as opposed to regurgitating everything you read on some **** outlet like the daily kos and facebook memes
 
Only if you would bother doing some research once in awhile:




PolitiFact | Facebook post says Republicans embraced individual mandate in 1993

The bill was always the product of the center right, fiscally conservative elements of the party like Dole and Romney. That doesn't mean it was popular across the party and it certainly wasn't popular with the far right individuals who make up the influential base of the modern GOP. So maybe do some research for once and inform yourself, as opposed to regurgitating everything you read on some **** outlet like the daily kos and facebook memes

Why did you avoid my question? Is personal responsibility still important to the right or not? And remember when it comes to treating the sick or injured, there is no avoiding it. Reagan signed that bill.
 
:lamo

I'd tell you what you sound like, but it's not worth it.

Of course it does, it was the reason this part of the discussion even exists.

Because I have admitted I don't know where the blame lies, that makes me an apologist for corruption and failure? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

And yet, you're wanting heads to roll, despite having very little clue on who was actually to blame.

Where have I ever advocated rewarding ineptitude? Again, that doesn't make sense.

Name the person responsible then. I suppose you could say Sebelius, but she didn't build the website. I suppose you could say Obama, but that'd be beyond stupid to say for reasons I doubt you care about.

So name the person, explain why they deserve to be fired and we'll go from there.


And, again, you're twisting the conversation to avoid the fact I'm right that the website didn't cost $640 million, which was the comment I responded to which started this discussion.

No, the "cute" was referring to the irony of you deliberately twisting the discussion to avoid acknowledging I was right and then in the very next section of your post, accuse me of spinning.

Name one thing I've lied about. Go ahead, name one thing I lied about in either of my last two posts. I'll wait.

Ever heard of investigations?? Well, we should have one to see who is responsible and to what extent..

So what that the600 mill was wrong, though you have yet to correct that number???

How much are you willing to pay for a broken... Anything?? What happens if you did buy something new that was broken? You get your money back... Well, this is no different, but if you are worried about the perpetrators livelihoods and families... Well, if they weren't somewhere between incompetent and criminal (stupid or lying, whatever), or if they weren't being funded by tax payers than I wouldn't even care...

The only thing I have to take back is calling you a liar, because I would have to prove that you knew your statements were false, its more likely that you just bought into the lies of others. Here's to hoping you begin to see a few extra inches past the tip of your nose.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that many of you confuse legal responsibility that is forced on the people by law with personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility is not something you mandate on the people. It is taking responsibility for your actions, accepting the consequences that come from them, and recognizing that your actions affect others. Put in another way, it is a moral obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions. You will note that I said moral obligation, not legal obligation. That is important and should not be overlooked.

So you are fine with paying for all that decide that they don't need insurance? That's what you are saying whether you know it or not. That's very magnanimous of you. You have made yourself morally and legally obligated to pay the bills of all who are uninsured by choice. That's the law as it stood before the AHC act..
 
Last edited:
The bill was always the product of the center right, fiscally conservative elements of the party like Dole and Romney. That doesn't mean it was popular across the party and it certainly wasn't popular with the far right individuals who make up the influential base of the modern GOP. So maybe do some research for once and inform yourself, as opposed to regurgitating everything you read on some **** outlet like the daily kos and facebook memes

I'm tired of my health insurance reflecting the cost of rightist--winger scofflaws not having health insurance..
 
Why did you avoid my question? Is personal responsibility still important to the right or not?

I directly answered your question: I pointed out this was a program never supported by what are the current dominant elements of the GOP. Why ignore that?


And remember when it comes to treating the sick or injured, there is no avoiding it. Reagan signed that bill.

1) We've been through this before: I'm likely more progressive on healthcare reform than you

2) It's not the uninsured that are heavy users of the ER and ER use is an overstated cost in the health care equation. The people most prone to use the ER are those with chronic illnesses, with insurance, but who are not receiving adequate care, and those on medicare and medicaid, due to issues with the reimbursement scheme

So again, do some research as opposed to constantly moaning out of ignorance and blind partisanship
 
I'm tired of my health insurance reflecting the cost of rightist--winger scofflaws not having health insurance..

this is nothing more than your usual meaningless dribble. Come back when you can at least manage to regurgitating something worth responding to.

PS and you're likely supporting a "right-wing" program as you type, or has the reality that the ACA is center-right policy meant to conserve current market interests escaped you?
 
this is nothing more than your usual meaningless dribble. Come back when you can at least manage to regurgitating something worth responding to.

PS and you're likely supporting a "right-wing" program as you type, or has the reality that the ACA is center-right policy meant to conserve current market interests escaped you?

Yeah, Obama loves the free market like Lenny loved rabbits.
 
Yeah, Obama loves the free market like Lenny loved rabbits.

center-right policy meant to conserve current market interests

apparently understanding what you read isn't an art you have currently mastered
 
Well, that doesn't even make sense.
It makes perfect sense. I'm just taking what you've said.

Congratulations, you are a liberal.
I'm not, but you don't strike me as someone too concerned with truth.
Ever heard of investigations?? Well, we should have one to see who is responsible and to what extent..
I agree. But since I'm not doing that investigation, how would I know who to fire? And the House is already doing investigations, that's why they had hearings last week.

See how that works now?

So what that the600 mill was wrong, though you have yet to correct that number???
I don't have to provide the specific correct number, just had to show the original number was wrong, which I've done.

The only thing I have to take back is calling you a liar, because I would have to prove that you knew your statements were false, its more likely that you just bought into the lies of others. Here's to hoping you begin to see a few extra inches past the tip of your nose.
You still cannot provide a single thing I've said which is untrue. Go ahead, find one thing I've said in my last three posts which is untrue.
 
Back
Top Bottom