• 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!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment

... as to the "jobs" bills...

".....Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority...."

Most of them are just trying to reverse prior legislation. They are not serious jobs bills.

How many jobs bills have been passed by (R)s in the House since they took control of the House in Jan 2011? - Yahoo! Answers

As for the ACA, at the least the CBO says it is break-even to a small benefit. Note the letter from the CBO to Boehner letting him know the repeal of ACA would add to the deficit.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

Some serious obfuscation and lies contained within your post

If you're going to quote the CBO you might want to quote their other reports which show the costs of Obamacare have DOUBLED since the initial legislation was passed. Oh and we don't get to keep our doctors and current insurance plans either like promised. Obamacare does not have the support of the American People. It needs to be defunded and repealed and hopefully someone outside of the 2 party system illusion will show some leadership and save the country from this nightmare.

We don't have the money for any of this. None of it is sustainable. That's the plan however. Use Obamacare to gather personal and medical information on every citizen. Bankrupt and destroy the current system. Rebuild it with universal HC. Total government control over every aspect of our lives. All of it unconstitutional. But who are we kidding? When was the last time an Obama supporter gave a rat's ^%$ about The Constitution? Never.
 
Look at Obama's record

Nothing more needs to be said

On January 21st 2009, Obama's only record as being POTUS was that he had to take the oath of office twice because he failed getting it right the first time.

No one called for the impeachment of Obama for his first failure on day one as being POTUS.
 
... as to the "jobs" bills...

".....Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority...."

Most of them are just trying to reverse prior legislation. They are not serious jobs bills.
That's a valid opinion which really supports the idea that these legislative issues should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate. That way, the people of this country can made a decision on the merits - not some German economist.

How many jobs bills have been passed by (R)s in the House since they took control of the House in Jan 2011? - Yahoo! Answers

[As for the ACA, at the least the CBO says it is break-even to a small benefit. Note the letter from the CBO to Boehner letting him know the repeal of ACA would add to the deficit.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act
The CBO has said a lot of things based on the information provided to them regarding the ACA. What it mostly resembles is a shell game whereby not all costs associated with the legislation are included - in fact, that's the basis on which it was passed to start with. The whole affair is a mess, with key pieces not implemented, costs rising seemingly every minute, waivers granted willy nilly, benefits postponed... this is not my assessment. It is the assessment of any rational person with eyes, and the conclusion of a democrat author of the legislation.
 
What link?
Don't play dumb with me, Deuce. If you don't want to do this the right way, then I suggest you don't do it all.
 
I didn't insinuate a damn thing, the Cons spending 30 votes on repealing ACA is piss ignorant.

With this do-nothing House i'd settle for at least an appearance of addressing key issues... :roll:

The republicants are have a much better minority block under senate rules so little if any bills or for that matter cabinet nominees are successfully brought before the Senate.

Let us remember one whine the Cons have over ACA, they hold that according to the constitution bills must be passed by the House BEFORE the Senate can consider them.

Right now the Republicants in the House are busy with their own wee sh**ty rebellion. Boehner has all but conceded leadership in the House and now wants the Senate to lead the way... contrary to what his party decried over ACA....

Ah, my poor misguided friend. The house is indeed passing bills. It is the court liar, I mean jester, I mean Harry Reid who is blocking the Senate from voting on them.

You should change the channel, Rachel Maddow is lying to you.
 
". . . continues . . ." Indeed. As I said, no enforcement. The work requirement is gone.:peace

Ok. Then go ahead and gather evidence that this has actually been happening the way you think. Go show us states just letting people collect welfare forever without working.
 
Don't play dumb with me, Deuce. If you don't want to do this the right way, then I suggest you don't do it all.

You've wildly misunderstood what I was saying. You guys put some effort into it, then I will. That was always the deal. You haven't done it yet.
 
You've wildly misunderstood what I was saying. You guys put some effort into it, then I will. That was always the deal. You haven't done it yet.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, and neither do you. If you don't know how to do this the right way either, then I suggest you give up and do something else.
 
Ok. Then go ahead and gather evidence that this has actually been happening the way you think. Go show us states just letting people collect welfare forever without working.

All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.:peace
 
All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.:peace

Prove it.

Because really, if you think Texas and Alabama elected to waive welfare work requirements, I don't know what to tell you. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Prove it.

Because really, if you think Texas and Alabama elected to waive welfare work requirements, I don't know what to tell you. :lamo

Ah. I see I'm dealing with a bad faith poster. I'll be more careful now. All the states who sought work requirement changes are acting as if the requirement was effectively waived.:peace
 
All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.:peace

This was a cost savings for states. Like is typical, people throw this out without understanding the specifics. That requirement meant states had to cough up money for education and training that they didn't have. They petitioned Obama to suspend the requirement. It's cheaper for the states, and has nothing to do with wanting more people on welfare.
 
This was a cost savings for states. Like is typical, people throw this out without understanding the specifics. That requirement meant states had to cough up money for education and training that they didn't have. They petitioned Obama to suspend the requirement. It's cheaper for the states, and has nothing to do with wanting more people on welfare.

It has to do with waiving the work requirement.
 
It has to do with waiving the work requirement.

And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.
 
This was a cost savings for states. Like is typical, people throw this out without understanding the specifics. That requirement meant states had to cough up money for education and training that they didn't have. They petitioned Obama to suspend the requirement. It's cheaper for the states, and has nothing to do with wanting more people on welfare.

How Obama has gutted welfare reform - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › CollectionsWelfare Reform
Sep 6, 2012 - To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to ... The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ...

"The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be.":peace
 
And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.

And you believe the POTUS has the authority to just waive it rather than rewriting the law?:peace
 
How Obama has gutted welfare reform - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › CollectionsWelfare Reform
Sep 6, 2012 - To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to ... The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ...

"The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be.":peace

Again, I told you why. That's the part you have to address.
 
And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.

Cheaper for who? Obviously not for the federal gov't. The states are naturally quite happy to take "free" federal assistance money (to be spent in their state) without having to match it with state money for education or job training expenses.

The executive branch does not write the law. Simply because Obama is too lazy, or lacks legislative support, does not not relieve him of the need to enforce the law as written and funded by congress.
 
And you believe the POTUS has the authority to just waive it rather than rewriting the law?:peace

It's what the states asked him to do. So they thought he did. But laws don't have to be enforced. For example, a police officer doesn't have to stop you for speeding.
 
It's what the states asked him to do. So they thought he did. But laws don't have to be enforced. For example, a police officer doesn't have to stop you for speeding.

Seems to me that setting aside an important federal statute is a little different. To say that "laws don't have to be enforced" is to say that we're no longer a nation of laws.
 
Cheaper for who? Obviously not for the federal gov't. The states are naturally quite happy to take "free" federal assistance money (to be spent in their state) without having to match it with state money for education or job training expenses.

The executive branch does not write the law. Simply because Obama is too lazy, or lacks legislative support, does not not relieve him of the need to enforce the law as written and funded by congress.

Actually there as well. A single payer more adequately pays for Medicare and Medicaid patients with proper funding.

But it certainly costs us less. And puts more money in our pockets, which certainly doesn't hurt the economy.
 
Seems to me that setting aside an important federal statute is a little different. To say that "laws don't have to be enforced" is to say that we're no longer a nation of laws.
No, it's saying we can use common sense when need be.
 
Ah. I see I'm dealing with a bad faith poster. I'll be more careful now. All the states who sought work requirement changes are acting as if the requirement was effectively waived.:peace

Provide any evidence of this. Bad faith? You're making a broad claim that work requirements are basically gone, and I'm just to take your word for it? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom