The Obama administration proposed today to set up a new bright and shiney government agency to "study and report on the changing climate." This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding... Lord no, that would be lunacy! Just look how credible all the evidence that was presented at the U.N. confrence in Copenhagen... Such stand up people. After all the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, just published a raunchy sex novel with help promoting it from BP, India's largest oil and gas producer... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
The Obama administration proposed today to set up a new bright and shiney government agency to "study and report on the changing climate." This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding... Lord no, that would be lunacy! Just look how credible all the evidence that was presented at the U.N. confrence in Copenhagen... Such stand up people. After all the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, just published a raunchy sex novel with help promoting it from BP, India's largest oil and gas producer... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
We already have dozens of agencies, private and government alike, that monitor and track the changing climate!!! WTF!!! .gov is such a cancer.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the health care package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most disgraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parliamentary procedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
Yeah, as informed as you are, you should know that this rule has been used mostly by your republican friends. I really think you should stop watching fox news buddy. I do agree this health bill is crap though. But it will give people coverage that don't have it and fix some things. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/
This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding...
You know what goverment agency skews their findings more than anyone else in order to gain more income??? The one I work for, the United States Military. I mean, it's not even hidden. Everyone who has ever served knows that if you don't use your full budget, you'll get your budget cut next year. So just before October, every Chief gets a new desk and a new chair, and a new computer, and a new whatever else they can think of that will bring the spending up to par. Happens every year. It's actually pretty sad too because there are certainly parts of our armed forces that could use the funding more than anyone and they end up going without because some bigd1ck behind a desk is playing the numbers.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
Yeah, as informed as you are, you should know that this rule has been used mostly by your republican friends. I really think you should stop watching fox news buddy. I do agree this health bill is crap though. But it will give people coverage that don't have it and fix some things. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/
Yeah, but it's been used by Rs and Ds in the past for budget "reconciliation." Not for sweeping new legislation that will create a federal program that will more than double the amount of GDP spent on health care. To use it in this way is absolutely unconstitutional as stated by constitutional experts.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
Yeah, as informed as you are, you should know that this rule has been used mostly by your republican friends. I really think you should stop watching fox news buddy. I do agree this health bill is crap though. But it will give people coverage that don't have it and fix some things. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/
Yeah, but it's been used by Rs and Ds in the past for budget "reconciliation." Not for sweeping new legislation that will create a federal program that will more than double the amount of GDP spent on health care. To use it in this way is absolutely unconstitutional as stated by constitutional experts.
And If any of you had taken time to notice, I said it was wrong when either side uses it. I don't care if there is an R or a D attached to their names, the Slaughter rule is wrong. I know you all love to throw out terms like "republican friends" and "Fox News" because you think it demonizes anyone on the political right, but to tell you the truth, I don't care. All it does is show your absolute intolerance of anyone's views but your own. The sad part is you can admit it is wrong, but just because I'm not a left wing liberal you still have to find a way to attack me... Seriously childish and pathetic.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Actually Vulch (your name doesn't shorten well... Just doesn't sound right. haha) The Slaughter Rule is not known as reconciliation. The Slaughter rule is one tactic to accomplish reconciliation, but there are other ways as well that do not go against our founding documents. As I said, it is wrong when used by both sides, but it has never been used to push such sweeping legislation that will change one sixth of our economy.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Actually Vulch (your name doesn't shorten well... Just doesn't sound right. haha) The Slaughter Rule is not known as reconciliation. The Slaughter rule is one tactic to accomplish reconciliation, but there are other ways as well that do not go against our founding documents. As I said, it is wrong when used by both sides, but it has never been used to push such sweeping legislation that will change one sixth of our economy.
Yep, the Slaughter Rule is not the same debate as Reconciliation (or Wreckonciliation as it is now dubbed, lol). They aren't even voting. Reconciliation was typically used as a vote in order to not need a 60% super majority to pass funding bills. But you still had to vote. The reason they are attempting to use the Slaughter rule is so they don't have to vote. So unbelievably unconstitutional.
its actually one of the reasons why the constitution was set up the way it is....to prevent BS like this.
You are correct Kuz, this is what the Constitution is supposed to protect against, but our current government continues to prove daily that they just don't care what the Constitution says anymore. Both sides of the isle have expanded government beyond the intended bounderies laid out in the constitution and they know there is nothing we can do about it. Just look at the plans for the new health care bill that were released to the public finally today. This will put the IRS in charge of collecting fines on people who don't have health insurance. That's right the IRS... The most useless and ruthless government agency on the planet will now have even MORE control over our daily lives. How could anyone in their right minds possibly think that is a good thing?
Also how could this possibly be considered a deficit reducing bill? The Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS alone will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform... I truely believe that the current administration thinks that everyone one of us are total morons... We all know how acurate the CBO usually is with there predictions on entitlement programs. How anyone could think this whole deal is good for country just boggles the mind...
lol. My current facebook status reads; "I can't believe Obama/friends are claiming the $940B health care bill is going to reduce the deficite in 10 years. Does anyone actually believe this garbage? What kind of ignorant people do they think we are that we would believe something so ridiculous?"
I think Obama's latest interview w/ FOX News's Bret Baier spoke volumes about what garbage this health care bill is. I'm not a big fan of any news source, so I pick up on the hot topics on drudge or yahoo or any other condensed news source. This quote really hit home with me about what kind of President we've voted for: "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate."
WHAT?????
The man used to be a US Senator for Christ's sake!!!!
And after a year of trying to pass one of the most controversial bills in the history of this country, he's gonna poo-poo the rules and regs of the House and Senate?????
I am not a fan of Obama's never have been, never will be. I watched him in action back in '96 when he systematically tore apart one of his own to gain a seat in the Illinois Senate. If you ever wanna do some digging, read into that election. It'll open your eyes about what kind of person and politician Obama is.
This will put the IRS in charge of collecting fines on people who don't have health insurance. That's right the IRS... The most useless and ruthless government agency on the planet will now have even MORE control over our daily lives. How could anyone in their right minds possibly think that is a good thing?
the fact that ANY agency will be able to collect fines because i dont buy a product is the problem. having the IRS do it is only a tiny point. if i dont want insurance, i shouldnt have to get it.
the government does not understand that this is my body. i own it. i can use it, abuse it, protect it, or be as reckless as i want to be with it, so long as i do not violate the rights of others.
TatuajeVI:
lol. My current facebook status reads; "I can't believe Obama/friends are claiming the $940B health care bill is going to reduce the deficite in 10 years. Does anyone actually believe this garbage? What kind of ignorant people do they think we are that we would believe something so ridiculous?"
10 years of taxes and 6 years of service (both ending on the same date about 10 years out) is what the CBO was projecting.
what about the 10 years after that? the ten years when we have 10 years of taxes and 10 years of service will not budget out the same at all.
this type of budget expense lie is not new. Social Security in the 30's and 40's made similar claims about how much people would pay over time.
Had Congress lived up to its promise it made in the 30's, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000.
thats not the worst of it. a government pamphlet explaining Social Security stated this: "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." the problem is, we actually have no right to our Social Security contributions whatsoever. two court cases show this the first (Helvering vs. Davis (1937)) said "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway." meaning that its just another tax that the government can use how it wishes and the the second (Fleming vs. Nestor (1960)) said "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."
the Social Security website (www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) says, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." Adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense"
why does this worry me? because health care is being sold as a "right" paid for by tax payers... just like Social Security.
Down-right scary regarding SS. It's funny - from the time I was very young, I never assumed I would ever be getting any of that back. I remember my parents explaining to me what SS was and how the program was going to fail before I got to retirement age anyway. Heh.
Down-right scary regarding SS. It's funny - from the time I was very young, I never assumed I would ever be getting any of that back. I remember my parents explaining to me what SS was and how the program was going to fail before I got to retirement age anyway. Heh.
Always assumed I'd never see this either. My parents are retirement age, still work part time because despite working full time from 18 on, their payments still suck.
This will put the IRS in charge of collecting fines on people who don't have health insurance. That's right the IRS... The most useless and ruthless government agency on the planet will now have even MORE control over our daily lives. How could anyone in their right minds possibly think that is a good thing?
the fact that ANY agency will be able to collect fines because i dont buy a product is the problem. having the IRS do it is only a tiny point. if i dont want insurance, i shouldnt have to get it.
the government does not understand that this is my body. i own it. i can use it, abuse it, protect it, or be as reckless as i want to be with it, so long as i do not violate the rights of others.
TatuajeVI:
lol. My current facebook status reads; "I can't believe Obama/friends are claiming the $940B health care bill is going to reduce the deficite in 10 years. Does anyone actually believe this garbage? What kind of ignorant people do they think we are that we would believe something so ridiculous?"
10 years of taxes and 6 years of service (both ending on the same date about 10 years out) is what the CBO was projecting.
what about the 10 years after that? the ten years when we have 10 years of taxes and 10 years of service will not budget out the same at all.
this type of budget expense lie is not new. Social Security in the 30's and 40's made similar claims about how much people would pay over time.
Had Congress lived up to its promise it made in the 30's, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000.
thats not the worst of it. a government pamphlet explaining Social Security stated this: "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." the problem is, we actually have no right to our Social Security contributions whatsoever. two court cases show this the first (Helvering vs. Davis (1937)) said "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway." meaning that its just another tax that the government can use how it wishes and the the second (Fleming vs. Nestor (1960)) said "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."
the Social Security website (www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) says, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." Adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense"
why does this worry me? because health care is being sold as a "right" paid for by tax payers... just like Social Security.
You are correct Kuz. There should be NO agency, government or private, that can force us to buy health insurance. It is a violation or our rights 100%. Just the fact that the IRS was chosen to carry out this robbery pointed out the jack boot tactics I feel the government is willing to stoop to so they can control us. This entire health care overhaul is about one thing and one thing only. Control. The government is taking control over our own lives away from us on little piece at a time and I don't see either party stopping it anytime soon...
These are the very same kind of abuses that led to the first revolution and could well lead to another. Hopefully this time it will not result in a war of arms but rather take the form of a political revolution and the re-establishment of the States Rights originally granted by the Constitution. There comes a time when a correction of the abuses must be done before total despotism is forced on us all.
Excerpt from the DOI
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security
Wow... Resurrection of an oldie here! LoL So who is the douchebag in question if not me? Allllthough it is a bit ironic that I return from a bit of a sabbatical from the forums last night and you post this today.... Hmmmm....
Glad I can help brother! I even missed your pinko commie ass! LoL j/k It is good to be back around here.
Softy...
Haha Yea, old age is getting to me I guess. Man we had some fun but VERY heated debates in this thread... Some hurt feelings for some people, but I enjoyed every debate, discussion and argument we had here.
Glad I can help brother! I even missed your pinko commie ass! LoL j/k It is good to be back around here.
Softy...
Haha Yea, old age is getting to me I guess. Man we had some fun but VERY heated debates in this thread... Some hurt feelings for some people, but I enjoyed every debate, discussion and argument we had here.
Glad I can help brother! I even missed your pinko commie ass! LoL j/k It is good to be back around here.
Softy...
Haha Yea, old age is getting to me I guess. Man we had some fun but VERY heated debates in this thread... Some hurt feelings for some people, but I enjoyed every debate, discussion and argument we had here.
Umm, did I miss the rant?
There was no rant just yet... Actually Vulchor revived this thread. It may be time for a new rant soon however.
Comments
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html?KEYWORDS=Slaughter+house+rules
Also how could this possibly be considered a deficit reducing bill? The Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS alone will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform... I truely believe that the current administration thinks that everyone one of us are total morons... We all know how acurate the CBO usually is with there predictions on entitlement programs. How anyone could think this whole deal is good for country just boggles the mind...
WHAT?????
The man used to be a US Senator for Christ's sake!!!!
And after a year of trying to pass one of the most controversial bills in the history of this country, he's gonna poo-poo the rules and regs of the House and Senate?????
I am not a fan of Obama's never have been, never will be. I watched him in action back in '96 when he systematically tore apart one of his own to gain a seat in the Illinois Senate. If you ever wanna do some digging, read into that election. It'll open your eyes about what kind of person and politician Obama is.
if i dont want insurance, i shouldnt have to get it.
the government does not understand that this is my body. i own it. i can use it, abuse it, protect it, or be as reckless as i want to be with it, so long as i do not violate the rights of others. 10 years of taxes and 6 years of service (both ending on the same date about 10 years out) is what the CBO was projecting.
what about the 10 years after that? the ten years when we have 10 years of taxes and 10 years of service will not budget out the same at all.
this type of budget expense lie is not new. Social Security in the 30's and 40's made similar claims about how much people would pay over time. Had Congress lived up to its promise it made in the 30's, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000.
thats not the worst of it.
a government pamphlet explaining Social Security stated this: "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right."
the problem is, we actually have no right to our Social Security contributions whatsoever.
two court cases show this the first (Helvering vs. Davis (1937)) said "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway."
meaning that its just another tax that the government can use how it wishes
and the the second (Fleming vs. Nestor (1960)) said "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."
the Social Security website (www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) says, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." Adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense"
why does this worry me? because health care is being sold as a "right" paid for by tax payers... just like Social Security.
Always assumed I'd never see this either. My parents are retirement age, still work part time because despite working full time from 18 on, their payments still suck.
Excerpt from the DOI
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security
Softy...
Fox news cracks me up!!!enjoy, wow ...................................
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/video/vi-BBhyRWN?ocid=OutNUS&from=OutNUS&FORM=BWVOLC