Fox News Tells It Like It Is

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It takes two to shut down.

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

When your doing the right thing , you don't worry about what's in it for you.
Explain your last comment ? I'm confused
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Funny, the majority of the population doesn't feel that way and is blaming the Repubs. much more than the Dems. Is extortion a way to negotiate?

Paul, you are correct that polls show that most blame the GOP. That doesn't make me wrong, when I say that (1) what the GOP is asking for, is not unreasonable, and that (2) Obama c ould have avoided the shutdown by agreeing to their reasonable demands.

Paul, a simple question...do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

"Is extortion a way to negotiate?"

Funny. When the Wisconsin legialature was going to reduce union benefits, and all the Dems in the state senate fled the state to halt the vote, I don't recall all this backlash against them. In Texas, when that Democratic state rep fillibustered for 24 hours to prevent an anti-abortion bill, she was hailed as a hero. When democrate are in the minority, I keep heraing that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". When a black Democrat is in the white house, dissent is racist and extortion. IS that what you're saying?

I don't like the shutdown. I particularly don't like it when our petty, vindictive President goes to unimaginable lengths to make it as painful as possible for WWII vets and families of those killed in action. If you're OK with Obama's actions there, that's your right. But those actions are a betrayal of the most basic duties of his office. He's a disgrace.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Is extortion a way to negotiate?"

Funny. When the Wisconsin legialature was going to reduce union benefits, and all the Dems in the state senate fled the state to halt the vote, I don't recall all this backlash against them.There was plenty of backlash. I'm sure you even started threads about it. In Texas, when that Democratic state rep fillibustered for 24 hours to prevent an anti-abortion bill, she was hailed as a hero. so filibustering is the same as saying if you don't do everything we like, we'll close down the government ?When democrate are in the minority, I keep heraing that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". No one has said people don't have the right to dissent - it is the whiney, unreasonablness and crying that is going on that is turning people against the Repubs. in general and the TP in particular. When a black Democrat is in the white house, dissent is racist and extortion. IS that what you're saying?Who, other than you said it was racism? I'm sure some of the complaining of the Pres. has it's basis in racism but since that is difficult to prove, I don't recall people saying that. Do you have any links to any mainstream press articles calling it racism? I know that is thrown around a lot here, yet I don't see anyone actually saying it is b/c of racism. I do know that if there is crime committed against a white person by a black person, or if someone posts something about A. Sharpton/J. Jackson it brings people out of the woodwork who hardly ever post here.

I don't like the shutdown. I particularly don't like it when our petty, vindictive President goes to unimaginable lengths to make it as painful as possible for WWII vets and families of those killed in action. If you're OK with Obama's actions there, that's your right. But those actions are a betrayal of the most basic duties of his office. He's a disgrace.

So you want to pick and choose what should stay open or what aspects of the govern. should stay in force? Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid to those families or are they not being paid bc of the lack of action of Repub. lead House?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

See below for what you originally asked. You didn't ask if their request was reasonable, you asked if it is "unreasonable for the GOP to ask ......" If you had asked that, I would have told you that w/o the individual mandate, the whole thing falls apart. Only a small amount of businesses where impacted by the postponement.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, a simple question...do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

[buckman]

Taxes and revenue continue to come in at record levels .
This is all BS and Constitutionally it's impossible to default.
I hope the few people in congress that are truly looking out for our future hold fast !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Taxes and revenue continue to come in at record levels .
This is all BS and Constitutionally it's impossible to default.
I hope the few people in congress that are truly looking out for our future hold fast !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, you've drank A LOT of Kool-Aid.

Buck, the Tea Party is holding the entire country hostage. Bohner has lost control and the PACs are openly threatenening any Republicans who plays ball.

The proposed House Bill that imploded yesterday was more about gaining talking points on the HCB than striking a deal.

Bohner and Cantor need to rally and quick.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Wow, you've drank A LOT of Kool-Aid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain how I'm wrong. Something like 200 billion coming in each month and like 20 billion in interest per month needs to be paid to prevent a default. That 20 billion has to be paid unless the President illegally orders the treasuries not to pay it . I believe that's how it works but your clearly the expert so learn me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Explain how I'm wrong. Something like 200 billion coming in each month and like 20 billion in interest per month needs to be paid to prevent a default. That 20 billion has to be paid unless the President illegally orders the treasuries not to pay it . I believe that's how it works but your clearly the expert so learn me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First off, our total interest outlays are a lot more than 20 B a month, it's like 400 B for the entire year.

Second, you still have the fund the other 80% still running or the economy implodes. We don't keep all that much cash under the mattress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

First off, our total interest outlays are a lot more than 20 B a month, it's like 400 B for the entire year.

Second, you still have the fund the other 80% still running or the economy implodes. We don't keep all that much cash under the mattress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your saying we can pay the dept but the rest is unsustainable on the income we generate , which at its current level is higher then ever before .
Sounds like your coming around.
Might even make you wonder how this can work if the dept hits 20 trillion by 2016 ,as projected ,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

The proposed House Bill that imploded yesterday was more about gaining talking points on the HCB than striking a deal.

Bohner and Cantor need to rally and quick.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ty-rift-video/

[spence]

I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval. Just because he's POTUS doesn't mean he can spend money illegally. They either had to do it via legislation or as they ended up doing through an outside channel.

To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt to create a division between the Commander in Chief and the troops just to score a few political points. That on it's own is pathetic.

By this is the GOP we have today, nothing is too costly if it reinforces the dream world some Republicans appear to be living in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval. Just because he's POTUS doesn't mean he can spend money illegally. They either had to do it via legislation or as they ended up doing through an outside channel.

To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt to create a division between the Commander in Chief and the troops just to score a few political points. That on it's own is pathetic.

By this is the GOP we have today, nothing is too costly if it reinforces the dream world some Republicans appear to be living in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval."

Then you would be 100% wrong. That's what an executive order, something the executive can order, unilaterally. Spence, you need to get in the habit of getting some facts before you spout off that your hero is innocent.

"To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt "

Tell that to the families. Like your ghero, you are unable to put yourself in their shoes, because like your hero, you have nohting but disdain for them. If you don't htink that denying death benefits, when he could have restored them with a stroke of the pen, is cruel, that's your right.

It was the denial of benefits, and the barricading of open-air parks, which was a pathetic, vain attempt to score political points. And clearly it worked on you.

Get some facts, before you invent pro-Obama jibberish. Executive Orders. Look it up.

" They either had to do it via legislation "

Wrong on the facts. Google "Obama Executive Order", and you'll see that he has signed a few, which reults in money getting spent on things he wants, without legislative approval. Or maybe try enrolling in a high school civics class before invent pro-Obama fantasies...

It was about $3 million in benefits that he denied. Less than he spends on one of his many, typical, czar-like vacations. Nice!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval."

Then you would be 100% wrong. That's what an executive order, something the executive can order, unilaterally. Spence, you need to get in the habit of getting some facts before you spout off that your hero is innocent.

"To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt "

Tell that to the families. Like your ghero, you are unable to put yourself in their shoes, because like your hero, you have nohting but disdain for them. If you don't htink that denying death benefits, when he could have restored them with a stroke of the pen, is cruel, that's your right.

It was the denial of benefits, and the barricading of open-air parks, which was a pathetic, vain attempt to score political points. And clearly it worked on you.

Get some facts, before you invent pro-Obama jibberish. Executive Orders. Look it up.

" They either had to do it via legislation "

Wrong on the facts. Google "Obama Executive Order", and you'll see that he has signed a few, which reults in money getting spent on things he wants, without legislative approval. Or maybe try enrolling in a high school civics class before invent pro-Obama fantasies...

It was about $3 million in benefits that he denied. Less than he spends on one of his many, typical, czar-like vacations. Nice!

Show me an executive order that spends money not already approved by another mechanism.

Show me some real analysis that the exec order was legal and at his disposal.

I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required for the money to come through the normal channel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Show me an executive order that spends money not already approved by another mechanism.

Show me some real analysis that the exec order was legal and at his disposal.

I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required for the money to come through the normal channel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How come when I say "he could have restored payments with executive order", you ask for proof. But when you say "I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required", you want us to take your word? Why is that?

In any event, here is an executive order signed buy Obama, to increase the scope and mission of Homeland Security. It invlilved increased funding.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...ission-the-u-s

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How come when I say "he could have restored payments with executive order", you ask for proof. But when you say "I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required", you want us to take your word? Why is that?

In any event, here is an executive order signed buy Obama, to increase the scope and mission of Homeland Security. It invlilved increased funding.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...ission-the-u-s

Did create new spending or just allocate previously approved spending?

What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?

How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?

And executive order isn't a magic wand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Redo in 3 months . Cowards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Redo in 3 months . Cowards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

House still has to pass it.

But even then were just going to get another LSD inspired push to defund the HCB that's never going to happen...instead of some actual negotiation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

House still has to pass it.

But even then were just going to get another LSD inspired push to defund the HCB that's never going to happen...instead of some actual negotiation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is LSD covered ?
I would be wiling to bet Obama and friends are more likely to have experimented then Cruz and company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

And you should go back and read my initial response.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And you should go back and read my initial response.

I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

[buckman]

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're wrong. So who set the budget computers? What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?
I stand by my statement. Not somebody like Rumsfeld!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

You guys are really talking out of your asses here. DoD lawyers reviewed the law and didn't think the payments were legal. It's a felony to spend government funds not appropriated by congress. This has been widely reported.

So far you've produced nothing to counter this and instead resort to tired ad hominem attacks.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.

Yea, but the government was fully funded back then. Had the government been shut down things would certainly been different.

Rummy wouldn't share a foxhole with Obama, that's for sure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Rummy wouldn't share a foxhole with Obama, that's for sure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Buckman made a complimentary assumption about Rummy, you chastised him, saying he "had no way of knowing that". How is your comment any different?

Oh, I forgot. Because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenwrongsideofhist oryteabagger...

[PaulS]

When I wrote that I was thinking along the lines of the government negotating the prices of drugs that it purchases through Medicare. I'm pretty sure that they are prohibited from doing so. I also think that in many other countries the govern. negotiates the prices of drugs and services and there may not be any 3rd parties (insurers). I think they also regulate things like what/how many hospitals can perform cat scans and negotiate with the seller what they'll pay for that equipment. So if Medicare negs. the cost of drugs does the cost curve still get altered given there are still 3rd parties? Also, with the price of some drugs over $100,000 per year or treatment as they may be under patent, isn't the supplt/demand curve being altered?