ObamaCare and Healthcare.gov

[keakap]

To simply say, "it's the law of the land, you have to pay for it" is nonsense. The Constitution says they don't have to pay for anything they don't want.

True. But beyond the technicalities the bill was NOT in any conventional way, shape or form passed ethically, honestly or, many would justifiably say, legally.

The ignorance of the Constitution oooooozing out of Washington is ironic, since the Demo Messiah was touted as a "constitutional law professor" (which most of know is a lie, but that is another issue.)

But back to the "law of the land", it simply is no longer. The "law" is illegal!
Bary (faux) president has nullified his own law and made it unconstitutional even beyond all other claims to date, by changing not the bill but the law, unilaterally by presidential fiat, without the participation of the Legislature (Hello!).
It's been mentioned here that a law once passed can only be changed by a legislated alteration, or a new law. NO ONE anywhere anytime ever in the history of the country has ever said it is just fine and dandy for a president to change a new law at his whim, and no president has ever gotten away with trying it before. (This is the fault of the Congress.)
When he re-wrote a passed law by giving "exemptions" (the soul of the scheme was NO exemptions!) to the highest bidders- his pals- he made the entire law void.

This is not a secret. This has been openly (however briefly) discussed. The "president" once again has 'broken the law' by illegally & unconstitutionally re-writing Obamadoesn'tCare.

There is no question about this. And that makes any person in either house of Congress who does not act on this law-breaking a co-conspirator, iow, another law-breaker.

The biggest question for a truly honest congressperson should be "is Obama's continuing breaking of his Oath and attacks on the Constitution be recognized immediately as grounds for impeachment?"

So far from the Left the most logical, reasonable, intelligent, cogent and perspicacious argument against the Obama regime lawlessness has been "Oh, pooh."

[keakap]

So, paying for it has passed the Senate and if a vote were to be taken today it would pass the House and the President would sign it. I don't see the problem That would be saying that the majority want it, wouldn't it? I rest my case your honor.

Unfortunately there are too many people that don't see the problem with the Fact that the majority of Americans do NOT want it yet they are NOT being honestly represented in Washington.

[keakap]

OCTOBER 4, 2013

Who Shut Down the Government?
Thomas Sowell
10/4/2013 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. ...

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

Thanks, Ed, for passing along the TRUTH. How refreshing!

[keakap]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Withholding any funding from ANY law is unconstitutional per the 14th amendment. Defaulting is also directly forbidden. If they want to withhold funding...they have to change the law.

There is absolutely NO argument they can make that trumps our constitution. Sorry you don't like it...but the LAW passed through all 3 branches of government.

Totally bass-ackward.
Look up "funding" and find the meaning of payment of debts.

[keakap]

To my knowledge, "Paying for it" has not passed the Senate because the House has not passed an appropriations bill for it to give to the Senate. All spending measures have to originate in the House.

Plus, we're not a democracy. It's not majority rule. We're a republic, with the minority given tools like this specifically designed to protect from tyranny of the majority.

According to law, and in simple terms, the way the budget process is supposed to work is this: The House drafts a general budget plan and sends it to the Senate. If the Senate makes any changes, those changes go back to the House until they all agree. Then it gets sent to the President to sign or veto. Following that passage of a general budget plan, separate and specific appropriations bills authorizing specific levels of spending on specific programs are brought up. Again, the House drafts them, the Senate modifies, and they work together to work out their differences.

That process that the law says Congress has to go through every year, has not happened since 2009. The House side of Congress has done their job, presenting multiple budgets to the Senate. The Senate side of Congress, regardless of the reasons and who does or doesn't agree with them, has not done their job in violation of the law. So, instead of having an actual budget and accompanying appropriations bills, they've passed a series of continuing resolutions to keep things going.

Regarding our current "crisis." Yes, there is a valid point that ACA has been passed into law by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and given a mandate by the voters and Republicans that don't like it are pitching a hissy fit by forcing the shutdown in an effort to defund it. There's also a valid point that the way the Republicans are trying to fund government now, a piece at a time through specific appropriations bills, is the way it's actually supposed to be done according to law. And on that point, it's the Democrats pitching a hissy fit that they want it all or nothing so THEY are the ones forcing the shutdown. Then, we've got Obama intentionally trying to make the "shutdown" as painful and disruptive as possible, spending more money to erect barriers to keep veterans out of open air monuments, erecting traffic cones blocking roadside stopping areas so people can't see Mt. Rushmore, trying to shut down parks that receive no federal funding, etc.,

So the only conclusion I can draw is that both Republicans and Democrats are acting like a bunch of spoiled kids who would rather take their toys and go home than play nice with their friends. Then we have President Stompy Foot acting like a petty, petulant, vindictive, cold-hearted child man who wants to be dictator.

Yes, yes, and yes.

[JPG]

Thanks, Ed, for passing along the TRUTH. How refreshing!

Because of content?






Or source?:D






Why is no one mentioning the fact that ACA was created and 'passed' by a congress with a certain political party majority in both houses and that majority was reversed in the house last election.


That should have indicated at least the possibility of a mandate to back off of something!;)

[JPG]

Our 'debt' is created when $ in < $ out and borrowing is merely a way to be able to pay that debt(other than simply printing more $).

I repeat I want the deficit eliminated so 'we' can pay down the loans.

I also want inflation to cease!












Fat chance in my lifetime!:mad:

[keakap]

Because of content?

------Yes. Sowell is one of my favorites, mainly because he lays it out in simple yet concise terms that are easily understandable, even by the Left (though they will not admit it).

Or source?
------ditto

Why is no one mentioning the fact that ACA was created and 'passed' by a congress with a certain political party majority in both houses and that majority was reversed in the house last election.
-----__--- Fabulous point! [Uh, just out of curiosity, do you think there may be as reasonable an answer frothcoming" ]

------ This is true, so the Left has created a Lie to obscure. They argue that the new majority is illegal, unconstitutional, unpatriotic, invalid and "just mean, mean, mean" because the so-called Tea Party was possibly involved in some of the campaigns.
And it is not mentioned because they know they're lying and have no other real answer, as usual.
...

The article by Sowell is the bottom line. Beautiful. True. Uncontestable. (And you can bet that the use of the "N" word has escalated by thousands of percent in Demoncratic circles!)

[JPG]

The article by Sowell is the bottom line. Beautiful. True. Uncontestable. (And you can bet that the use of the "N" word has escalated by thousands of percent in Demoncratic circles!)

Honest Nerd!;)

[heathicus]

Our 'debt' is created when $ in < $ out and borrowing is merely a way to be able to pay that debt(other than simply printing more $).

No. When $ in < $ out (spending is more than income), that is a deficit.

Debt is what we incur when we borrow money to cover the deficit.

Mandatory spending is < $ in. So with just the tax revenue the government collects each month, we can make our payments on the existing debt, make social security payouts, medicare and medicaid payments, pay our soldiers, etc. Everything that government *has* to do can be done with existing tax revenue. Raising the debt ceiling lets us borrow more money to pay for all the extra things that government does NOT *have* to do.

Raising the debt ceiling has no bearing on whether we can make payments on the debt or not. And let's all hope we are never really in a situation where we needed to go into more debt just to make the interest payments on the existing debt.