1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

This sickens me

Discussion in 'The Atrium' started by ivo610, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. Passepartout

    Passepartout Happy Father's Day!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    Ratings:
    +21
    So worry my friend. As my two twin nephews on my brother's side have cerebral palsy. One in a wheelchair and one deaf and mute. As hopefully things will change and maybe you can suggest to the MDA people that wheelchairs are needed.
     
  2. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    Obviously the US is not a democracy but a democratic - or representative - republic. That does not mitigate the need for citizens to be informed.

    Part of being an informed citizen requires allowing said elected representatives to do their jobs, which was precisely my point in the first place. Perhaps you should have asked for a clarification, instead of leaping to a conclusion. You keep writing about the necessity of an informed citizenry, however, it will never be plausible for the average citizen to be sufficiently informed enough to actively supervise his or her elected representative. So as I said, let the informed few do their jobs.

    Look at the First Amendment: An important aspect – IMO the most important - of the freedom of the press is to allow the press to have an adversarial relationship with government. The reason that is important is so that the people are informed of what is going on in government. The people then have the right to assemble (protest) and petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the people are ignorant of the issues all that is meaningless.

    I never said that the people shouldn't be informed, however, there must be a veil between Congress and the citizenry. A sort of separation that it was designed to have. I suspect you do not prefer watching Congressman and Senators offering up soundbytes and zingers in a vain effort to reach the evening news. Since I will not contribute to your ridiculous habits by placing words into your mouth, I also doubt that you believe that News Programs playing isolated clips of Reps speaking without the slightest bit of context in order to diminish their argument adds anything to Public Discourse. Get the cameras out of Congress, limit the press to transcripts of the floor debates which would be perfectly sufficient and would likely encourage our political leaders to actually make substantive arguments since zingers typically look absurd in print.

    Look at the Conyers quote again – he didn’t read the bill and no one in his office did either because he didn’t “have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill”. So out of one side of your mouth you call elected representatives the “informed few” and out of the other side you give them excuses for not being informed.

    That bill was hardly a surprise to the Reps in the House, the core provisions and the bulk of the language had been discussed at length since the introduction of HR3590 on 9-17-2009, and the Bills Consideration by the Ways and Means Committee on October 8, 2009. Conyer certainly had the opportunity to review the bulk of that Bill when he voted for it on November 7, 2009. He absolutely did have ample time for review when he voted yes on the Senate Amendments on March 21, 2010.

    You read it again with the above context and then tell me that it was anything other than a Congressman hedging his bets against an unpopular piece of legislation. No, that quote was hardly informative.

    It looks to me like the ultimate aim of the UnAffordable Care Act is single payer which Obama has said he's in favor of and which will continue our path to insolvency. As the bill was going through congress, it was more than 2,000 pages. And as to the number of regulations, the Washington Post fact checker thinks its closer to 10,000 but because it’s so convoluted it gave McConnell's statement a “no rating”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-many-pages-of-regulations-for-obamacare/2013/05/14/61eec914-bcf9-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

    At the time of voting yes on November 7, 2010 yes it was 1990 pages. When he voted to approve the Senate Amendments on March 21, 2009 it was 906 pages, sorry but you fell for a couple of exaggerations.

    The number of pages isn’t the issue as much as it greatly expands the role of the government. Also, I think it’s unconstitutional as it was sold. Remember Obama repeated over and over again those who weren’t covered would be penalized, not taxed. Yet the only way Chief Justice Roberts found it to be constitutional is to call the “penalty” a tax.


    SCOTUS case law holds that SCOTUS will uphold Constitutionality when possible:



    Because every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality" Hooper v. California 155 U.S. 648, 657

    As for whether or not it was a tax:

    In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35

    Roberts applied ample precedence in his Majority opinion, he didn’t make up law on the spot even though he does have some Common Law power to do so.

    If we could go back in time and have it’s proponents advocate for that tax IMO they couldn’t have bribed enough Democrats to vote for it.

    They didn't avoid labeling it a tax for the benefit of Democrats but rather for Congressional and Senate Republicans who voted against the Legislation anyways.

    And why so many waivers if it’s such a great plan?

    I didn't say it was a great plan stop using Fox News as a model for arguments, these straw men are getting tiresome. I stated it had some great parts. Why so many waivers, these are short term waivers most of which are for only a year. The reason is simple, allow for gradual implementation to lessen the possibility of economic shock.

    IMO it puts us on the path to socialized medicine and as Thatcher said, ‘the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money’. I look at Europe and see an economic model I don’t want us to follow and Obamacare is a huge step in that direction.

    Where would you be without Googling quotes? Ironic that legislation which drew heavily upon Republican ideas is suddenly Socialist only after the Dems started backing those provisions.

    You provide the answer which contradicts your example. Anyone unwilling to see cuts to Medicare and Social Security is uninformed. That reinforces my point of the importance of an informed citizenry. The professional politicians of today don’t have the courage to do what’s best for the country unless an informed citizenry “makes” them.

    You misunderstand the point, voters are inherently selfish. Professional politicians are more likely to make smart decisions when the mob doesn't burn them for it.

    Neither of those quotes are relevant. Even you know we have a republic, not a democracy, right? The checks and balances are in place to guard against "mob rule". And an informed citizenry is antithetical to a "mob".

    I presented them to counteract your initial quotes praising the citizenry. You seem to harbor hopes for a more informed population, I however side with the founders, that it cannot be expected hence the necessity for representatives.

    And how Is Franklin’s quote relevant to whether citizens should be informed? It certainly could be interpreted to mean that’s important or we’ll lose the republic. If your point is the founders didn’t believe an informed citizenry was important, you’ve got a long way to go to substantiate that point.

    I never argued that citizens shouldn't be informed, only that the mob has no place in the decision making process. Read my initial statement again. Franklin's notion of a republic was akin to representative democracy, ie let the informed few make the decisions.

    Perhaps the funniest and most idiotic part of your post was writing “I can tell” after I posted I watch both Fox News and MSNBC. After I posted that and that I listen to NPR and “right wing” radio, you give an “exposition” of all four. So your snarky “I can tell” is thrown back in your face as you too apparently watch Fox News, MSNBC and listen to NPR and talk radio. Either that, or you pontificate on things you know nothing about. And of course those aren’t my only – or main – sources of information, I was only responding to your posting “let an informed few make the big decisions and try to keep the uninformed masses ie Fox News/MSNBC watchers out of the decision making process” which now looks like you’re calling yourself a member of the uninformed masses.

    You did respond to my posting in a contentious arrogant and foolish manner and you received some well deserved snarky responses, which would not have been directed at you had you responded with a bit more maturity and a bit more sense. I have been foolish, for bothering to bicker with an individual whose notion of argument consists of googling quotes, proffering 7th grade social studies level explanations of Government and throwing out one logically fallacious argument after another(how about another straw man). I wrote I can tell because it's obvious that you get your news from a bunch of entertainers. I didn't see the Federalist papers in your regurgitated statements nor did I see the early Congressional floor debates, I had the pleasure of studying both back before I completed my education at the University of Wisconsin's Law School. In your arguments I've seen nothing more than the drivel of pundits and bloggers mixed in with some old saw quotes, nothing of substance. You say you've thrown my statement back in my face, if it helps you sleep better at night please keep telling yourself that.

    Both a consumption tax and a flat tax could be revenue neutral, but I would like to see a cut in revenue to the government. A good start on controlling spending is to implement zero-based budgeting.

    Zero based budgeting was attempted by Carter, it produced mediocre results at the State level and was disastrous at the federal level. Zero Based Budgeting is not and never was the answer. Could be revenue neutral, no they would not be.

    The exact opposite is what's going on in DC - advocates of bigger government call a reduction in the increase of spending as a "cut".

    No they actually have passed cuts, and yes reducing the fixed increases will produce long term reductions in deficits.

    The ultimate fix of our fiscal mess will require an informed citizenry to put in place representatives who recognize the mess. So we are on opposite ends of that spectrum: You favor leaving it up to politicians who have gotten us into this mess and are making it worse. Incredibly, you are arguing in favor of an ignorant electorate.

    There you go again, and after I invited you to explain your views in a more civil discussion. What I favor are adjustments to our Government to make it easier for elected officials to make responsible decisions as opposed to the out of control populism and mob rule we have today. Find where I argued the electorate should be kept ignorant instead I merely argued against your notion of the informed citizenry as the cure to all that ills this Country, sorry but like Thomas More’s Utopia it just isn’t feasible.

    I think we need to clean house of these professional politicians who mostly enrich themselves at the expense of the country.

    A tired argument, our politicians are the product of the current politically charged population that we have. I’d argue that Americans spend more time on average reading about, posting about, watching and listening to political analysis than ever before. I would argue that the crop that has been thrown out was much more responsible than the newly minted politicians who are being sent to the hill. Our most responsible Statesmen are retiring or being voted out in droves and are being replaced by bomb throwing lunatics.

    I think the federal government is way too big already and proponents of UCA want to see it expanded.

    It is, for instance there is way too much redundancy. Health care, however, was a necessary expansion. As a population and economy expands a larger Gov’t will be required to expand with it. I have worked with beneficiaries who were kicked off their health care plans and have seen what happens to people, the big insurers did it to themselves.

    And for those who welcome the ever increasing nanny state, an uninformed citizenry is a good way to get there.

    The trends of the “nanny state,” another sign of where you get your news, are steadily declining. Gov’t aid in the form of food stamps, disability payments and subsidies have been on the decline since the late 1980s. See Welfare reform for instance. The massive increase in benefits recipients occurred because we had a recession.

    Look at Axelrod’s excuse for Obama regarding the IRS scandal on Morning Joe. After repeating the lie that it was just low-level bureaucrats he says, "Part of being president is there is so much beneath you that you can't know because the government is so vast." That’s right, the government is so vast this administration wants to make significantly “vaster”. [/quote]

    It was Low level bureaucrats, if the President wanted this done he could have simply ordered the IRS to change it’s agency rules to reflect the actual wording of the laws. Liberal groups received plenty of skepticism as well, it’s just that since the political right relies more heavily on 527s it was bound to receive more attention.

    BTW you never responded, do you believe that our more transparent government of today runs better than the closed off body that existed prior to the sunshine laws of the 1960s?
     
  3. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,025
    Ratings:
    +3,107
    …let the informed few do their jobs.
    You post as though you are an advocate of big government. And you definitely have a high opinion of elected officials. I favor a much smaller government and don't hold the vast majority of Senators and Representatives in high regard.

    Conyer certainly had the opportunity to review the bulk of that Bill
    Then his statement made no sense. If you were right why wouldn't he have said, 'I know the bill' or something similar?

    They didn't avoid labeling it a tax for the benefit of Democrats but rather for Congressional and Senate Republicans who voted against the Legislation anyways.
    No, they avoided calling it a tax because it would have been even more unpopular with the people and the Democrats would have had a tougher time voting for it.

    Where would you be without Googling quotes? Ironic that legislation which drew heavily upon Republican ideas is suddenly Socialist only after the Dems started backing those provisions.
    Perhaps you need Google to learn about history but don't project that onto me. I've been following world events and politics since the early 1960s. (In case you don't know, the internet and Google weren't around then.) And you apparently are having trouble with this concept: I don't care who promotes an idea. Putting the federal government unnecessarily on the path to taking over health care is a socialist idea.

    You misunderstand the point, voters are inherently selfish. Professional politicians are more likely to make smart decisions when the mob doesn't burn them for it.
    No, professional politicians are more likely to selfishly look at what will get them re-elected.

    You say you've thrown my statement back in my face, if it helps you sleep better at night please keep telling yourself that.
    That’s what people say when they can't refute a point. You told us all about Fox News, MSNBC, NPR and right wing talk radio after disparaging those who watch and listen to them. You're stuck and it has nothing to do with how well I sleep. And BTW, you aren't the only one who has studied the Constitution and Federalist papers.

    Zero Based Budgeting is not and never was the answer.
    Wow, there's some in depth analysis. I guess it must be true because you say so.

    It was Low level bureaucrats…
    With that you reveal where you get your news. An MSNBC host couldn't have said it better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    That's the bottom line.
    TJV is spot on.

    This unaffordable health stuff is not just a mistake. It's a huge mistake, catastrophic. Like going into Iraq.
    Each "side" made a colossal error IMO.
     
  5. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    You post as though you are an advocate of big government. And you definitely have a high opinion of elected officials. I favor a much smaller government and don't hold the vast majority of Senators and Representatives in high regard.

    I advocate smart government, reducing redundancy and increasing efficiency. Most people tend to like their own congressman and senators, and why not when most of them just spout out populist drivel.

    Then his statement made no sense. If you were right why wouldn't he have said, 'I know the bill' or something similar?

    I already explained this please read my post again.

    No, they avoided calling it a tax because it would have been even more unpopular with the people and the Democrats would have had a tougher time voting for it.

    Still passed on May 21, 2010, even after the significant backlashes against the individual mandate.

    Perhaps you need Google to learn about history but don't project that onto me. I've been following world events and politics since the early 1960s. (In case you don't know, the internet and Google weren't around then.) And you apparently are having trouble with this concept: I don't care who promotes an idea. Putting the federal government unnecessarily on the path to taking over health care is a socialist idea.

    Huh? So what if they weren't around then, you've had a habit of posting quotes without much in the way of supporting context, some of which were actually contradicted by other statements made by the speaker. Experience does not automatically equate to knowledge. Socialism, putting on the path, you're reaching here. Was it socialist of Alexander Hamilton to necessity of federal government to regulate Commerce in Federalist paper number 12 or for that matter Madison in number 42. It doesn't establish federal healthcare or a federal service, it does nothing of the kind.

    No, professional politicians are more likely to selfishly look at what will get them re-elected.

    There's another Jefferson quote in there, but this brings me back to an earlier question that you have refused to answer. Do you believe that our more transparent government since the late 1960s has run better or worse than it did in the past? Yes or no question and you can even add context if you'd like.

    That’s what people say when they can't refute a point. You told us all about Fox News, MSNBC, NPR and right wing talk radio after disparaging those who watch and listen to them. You're stuck and it has nothing to do with how well I sleep. And BTW, you aren't the only one who has studied the Constitution and Federalist papers.

    I've blown up your points, wow the power of self declarations! Quit crowing Mission accomplished and please try to bring something of substance for a change. I criticized Fox News and MSNBC etc because they are political theater and absurd theater at that. They do not add to discourse they do not make substantive arguments nor do they offer anything beyond zingers and talking points.

    Wow, there's some in depth analysis. I guess it must be true because you say so.

    Well that line of thinking has worked for you so far with your own arguments.

    • Fine the first problem with zero based budgeting is that many departments are simply too large to administer it, like the DoD. The end result, is that more and more staff must be brought in to actually making it work leading to more administrative bloat.
    • The budgeting process is inapplicable to areas with intangible results, again the DoD and training of troops.
    • It requires a higher degree of training leading to even more costs.
    • Finally in a big organization the information backing up the budgeting would almost certainly prove overwhelming. That being said could there be some application for zero based budgeting, in some limited areas yes it could improve efficiency, however, trying to apply it again to the Federal Government would be lunacy.
    With that you reveal where you get your news. An MSNBC host couldn't have said it better.


    No instead MSNBC hosts were claiming that liberal groups were targeted as well even without providing examples. I actually took my analysis from the IG report.
     
  6. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337

    There are a lot of parts I don't like in it, like the regulations on pre-existing conditions are going to need to be seriously reformed. Furthermore the emphasis on IT was nothing more than corruption pushed by Companies in the medical IT business. Finally trying to remake every hospital into the image of Mayo Clinic was just absurd. Yet I wouldn't call it a catastrophe, at least not if the adults take over in the next couple of years. However it does do some good things, the individual mandate eliminates some of the cost imposed on the system by free riders. The expanded coverage reduces the costs absorbed by existing rate payers and hospitals and I'd point out again that the exchange program finally gives us a framework to get away from EMployer based healthcare.
     
  7. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,025
    Ratings:
    +3,107
    Still passed on May 21, 2010, even after the significant backlashes against the individual mandate.
    You aren’t following the argument. Look at the bribing of democrats that was necessary to pass it even though it was based upon the misleading notion that it is not a tax. Had it been promoted as a tax, it never would have passed.

    Comparing the power and scope of the federal government at our founding, and decades after, to the power and scope of the government today is absurd on its face.

    I've blown up your points, wow the power of self declarations!
    This is hilarious – you probably don’t even see the arrogant irony in this sentence.

    Fine the first problem with zero based budgeting is that many departments are simply too large to administer it, like the DoD.
    The status quo will lead us to financial ruin. Serious cuts need to be made. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare need to be “touched”. And zero based budgeting would challenge the idea that smaller than expected increases are “cuts”. Look at our debt and future liabilities: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html
    What will happen when the Fed has to stop and then unwind it’s quantitative easing? We’re in real trouble and people like you who have confidence in the elected officials who got us here and who think the ACA is a good idea are a big part of the problem. That’s why what you think is an important question about transparency and sunshine laws is moot. The federal government is out of control and far too many voters are ignorant of the fiscal mess we’re in.

    I actually took my analysis from the IG report
    “Analysis”? Your posting that the targeting by the IRS of conservative groups was limited to low level bureaucrats in time will look at silly as your including yourself in the uninformed masses. In a congressional hearing the IG said, “The operative word, Mr. Chairman, is audit, it was not conducted as an investigation.” I leave it to you to verify that quote on c-span video. Your buying into that foolishness says a lot about your big government bias.
     
  8. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    Wow, you guys sure have a lot of time to post.

    One man one vote.
    Healthcare law is not perfect and will certainly need changes but you have to start somewhere.
    I agree, we need to cut big government, lets start with the DOD and the farm bill and subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

    Ok times up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,417
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Even better, declare bribery via campaign "contributions" illegal. How many laws are written by campaign contributors for their benefit? That would help cut the budget and its deficit right there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. fanindaup

    fanindaup Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +60
    Citizens United was the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made for the average person. Instead of removing money from politics it opened the floodgates. Now you get a vote for every dollar you can afford to donate to a campaign.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,417
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Only if you are a corporation. Individuals are still limited for the most part to under 6 figures total for any election cycle. Cases before SCOTUS this term challenging the constitutionality of these limits.
     
  12. fanindaup

    fanindaup Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +60
    my point exactly. Corporations get even more sway. and you don't have to define campaign law for me. I'm a second-time candidate for county commissioner in 2014, as well as a party county co-chair.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    You aren’t following the argument. Look at the bribing of democrats that was necessary to pass it even though it was based upon the misleading notion that it is not a tax. Had it been promoted as a tax, it never would have passed.


    I understood the argument perfectly well and it does not square away with the events as they unfolded. Even if they did the point is moot given the Court's historic reluctance to hold legislative actions unconstitutional. If the Court finds that the law dovetails with a Constitutional power then the Court will uphold it even if said power is not explicitly stated in the law.

    Comparing the power and scope of the federal government at our founding, and decades after, to the power and scope of the government today is absurd on its face.

    Which I did not do, However, the power to regulate industry/Commerce/ Business was certainly contemplated and discussed by the founders. Your attempt at labeling it "SOCIALISM!!!!" was absurd and sophomoric, turn off the political theater.

    This is hilarious – you probably don’t even see the arrogant irony in this sentence.

    I meant it to be funny, since I was making fun of you. Do you understand now?

    The status quo will lead us to financial ruin.

    Which does not justify leaping from frying pan to fire with an unworkable budgeting process. I'll take your dodging as a concession that Zero Based Budgeting is not a solution.

    Serious cuts need to be made. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare need to be “touched”. And zero based budgeting would challenge the idea that smaller than expected increases are “cuts”. Look at our debt and future liabilities: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

    I don't disagree that the deficits need to be cut and cut more aggressively. As for unfunded liabilities argument it's a dishonest argument. First that article does not take economic growth into account, the numbers are displayed without context. For instance our GDP, 75 years ago was less than $1 trillion dollars US. The result is the reader naturally compares those terrifying numbers in comparison to today's revenues thus amplifying the apparent amount. Second it extrapolates the "unfunded liability" based upon the current sluggish environment, should the economy rebound and recapture robust growth revenues will naturally rise. Third where the heck are the sources, those number look a lot like the actuarial estimates of 2009.

    Your article is a fine demonstration of the hack piece WSJ has turned into since Newscorps bought it.

    What will happen when the Fed has to stop and then unwind it’s quantitative easing?

    If, for now inflation is holding steady. Stagflation is nowhere in sight, at least not yet.

    We’re in real trouble and people like you who have confidence in the elected officials who got us here and who think the ACA is a good idea are a big part of the problem.

    I don't have confidence in the current crop of elected officials, they're the result of an overly involved populace and naturally they tend towards populism. I argued that some parts of the legislation are bad and some parts are good, turn off your treasured political theater and find some actual substantive news.

    That’s why what you think is an important question about transparency and sunshine laws is moot.

    It is not moot, as the federal government has become more transparent it has become more dysfunctional. You can engage in as much wishful thinking as you'd like, I don't know you and quite frankly I could care less over your poorly formed opinions, this argument is all but over. I prefer actual solutions and recreating the veil that is supposed to exist between elected officials and the populace is one solution. I never said that the citizens should be kept ignorant but instead argued that the citizenry is not and never will be equipped to directly supervise it elected officials in the manner you seem to hope.

    The federal government is out of control and far too many voters are ignorant of the fiscal mess we’re in.

    Voters are inherently selfish, their natural tendency is too preserve programs that benefit them demand cuts in programs that do not impact them and of course oppose any new form of revenue to pay for said spending.

    “Analysis”? Your posting that the targeting by the IRS of conservative groups was limited to low level bureaucrats in time will look at silly as your including yourself in the uninformed masses. In a congressional hearing the IG said, “The operative word, Mr. Chairman, is audit, it was not conducted as an investigation.” I leave it to you to verify that quote on c-span video. Your buying into that foolishness says a lot about your big government bias. [/quote]


    No I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves and right now the facts do not support the notion that this was widespread or ordered from "the top." Could this change, perhaps. As for targeting of Conservative groups, you do realize that the vast majority of these groups are Conservative, right?
     
  14. fanindaup

    fanindaup Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +60
    "Voters are inherently selfish, their natural tendency is too preserve programs that benefit them demand cuts in programs that do not impact them and of course oppose any new form of revenue to pay for said spending."

    That is the most spot-on comment of this entire thread.


    "No I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves and right now the facts do not support the notion that this was widespread or ordered from "the top." Could this change, perhaps. As for targeting of Conservative groups, you do realize that the vast majority of these groups are Conservative, right?[/quote]

    Not to mention, they deserve to be investigated for claiming tax exempt status since they claimed tax exempt status when they don't qualify. My county party has taken great pains to make sure we don't run afoul of that same law, because as a political organization we can't claim non profit status. Those that do are breaking the law and making the rest of us look bad as well as shifting the tax burden unfairly to law abiding tax payers.
     
  15. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,025
    Ratings:
    +3,107
    I understood the argument perfectly well and it does not square away with the events as they unfolded. Even if they did the point is moot given the Court's historic reluctance to hold legislative actions unconstitutional.
    You continue to miss the point “perfectly” – or is this another example of posting something stupid in an attempt at being funny? For the last time, the ACA mandate was explicitly sold as a penalty, not a tax. (Since you’re having trouble understanding, how it was sold has nothing to do with the Court.)

    I meant it to be funny, since I was making fun of you. Do you understand now?
    Sure you were. :rolleyes: I understand you aren’t good at backing up your point of view. From unwittingly including yourself in the uninformed masses to this. What a pathetic response.

    Which does not justify leaping from frying pan to fire with an unworkable budgeting process. I'll take your dodging as a concession that Zero Based Budgeting is not a solution.
    Zero based budgeting can't be applied universally (Social Security must be reformed in a different way), but where it can be applied it would radically change the mindset of bureaucrats whose agencies are rewarded by spending more and more money every year.

    If, for now inflation is holding steady. Stagflation is nowhere in sight, at least not yet.
    Good Lord, I ask what will happen when the Fed has to stop QE3 and then unwind its holdings and you answer in the present tense. It’s becoming clear why you consider yourself uninformed and why you have such a high regard for our elected representatives. Or do you? Is it this: I don't have confidence in the current crop of elected officials or this: let the informed few do their jobs.? Maybe you should settle the argument you’re having with yourself.

    I prefer actual solutions and recreating the veil that is supposed to exist between elected officials and the populace is one solution. I never said that the citizens should be kept ignorant but instead argued that the citizenry is not and never will be equipped to directly supervise it elected officials in the manner you seem to hope.
    So our big problem is the government isn’t secretive enough? That’s ridiculous on its face. An informed citizenry must indirectly supervise elected representatives – and an independent press is a critical - currently mostly missing - part of this equation. For example, education is necessary to persuade voters – no matter their political affiliation - reforms in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in their best interests.

    No I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves and right now… That’s not what you posted. You wrote, It was Low level bureaucrats, if the President wanted this done he could have … You had already come to a conclusion based upon an audit, not an investigation. And once again you find yourself backtracking.

    Look at what you are advocating in this thread: An uninformed citizenry and a big and secretive federal government. A huge and growing bureaucracy acting in secret – what could possibly go wrong”?! Whether it’s labeled “socialism” or “state-ism” it’s leading us down a path that even members of the Obama administration have called unsustainable (while they do nothing about it). You are right about one thing: This argument is all but over – except the one you’re having with yourself.
     
  16. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    You continue to miss the point “perfectly” – or is this another example of posting something stupid in an attempt at being funny? For the last time, the ACA mandate was explicitly sold as a penalty, not a tax. (Since you’re having trouble understanding, how it was sold has nothing to do with the Court.)

    I understood your whining the first time I read it and I disagreed and still do. Even after the feces hit the fan and the Tea Party movement was in full swing enough Dems were still mustered to vote. Yes I do not believe that labeling the penalty a tax would have killed the act, not when you actually look at the Legislative history, something you have been woefully ignorant of. Yes the Court's ruling certainly does matter given that we joined this discussion after you declared the Act unconstitutional.

    Sure you were. [​IMG]I understand you aren’t good at backing up your point of view. From unwittingly including yourself in the uninformed masses to this. What a pathetic response.

    There you go again, I will confess that it's daunting arguing with you, after all you brought your own one man fan club to proclaim success and cheer you on. I was poking fun at your goofy habit of proclaiming your successes, kind of like a woman insisting she's a lady or a person claiming he's smart, if you have to say it it probably isn't true. Thank you for confirming my humor.

    Zero based budgeting can't be applied universally (Social Security must be reformed in a different way), but where it can be applied it would radically change the mindset of bureaucrats whose agencies are rewarded by spending more and more money every year.

    That much is correct, that agencies have a tendency to do that in the ordinary course of business. However, instead of forcing agencies to apply an unwieldy budgeting approach there are better ways. For instance simply cutting or restricting the agency's budget typically forces them to prioritize more aggressively. However, it's been tried and it failed miserably.

    Good Lord, I ask what will happen when the Fed has to stop QE3 and then unwind its holdings and you answer in the present tense.


    Until inflation starts to rise above acceptable levels, it's actually a bit low right now, that is not a foregone conclusion, next.

    It’s becoming clear why you consider yourself uninformed and why you have such a high regard for our elected representatives.

    Compared to a typical legislator who deals with legislation as part of his profession, we are both uninformed. I belief that elected officials, with their constant jockeying for power and position have a habit of balancing each other out. I can't say the same for the American populace who, like you, are too easily manipulated by absurd talking points.

    Or do you? Is it this: I don't have confidence in the current crop of elected officials or this: let the informed few do their jobs.? Maybe you should settle the argument you’re having with yourself.

    I have already stated that I believe that many of our current political problems are the result of a overly involved populace and that a veil needs to exist between Congress and the Public, specifically get the cameras out of Congress. What I have consistently argued is to allow our government to function the way it was designed to function. Please restrict your arguments to what I have actually said as opposed to your imagination.

    So our big problem is the government isn’t secretive enough?

    I never said that, see my last remark.

    That’s ridiculous on its face.

    Again you are arguing with your imagination.

    An informed citizenry must indirectly supervise elected representatives

    Would be great if it were possible, it is not and that's not why we have a representative form of Government. I'm siding with the founders on this one. Besides to be adequately informed would require most citizens to abandon gainful economic pursuits.

    and an independent press is a critical - currently mostly missing part of this equation

    Never argued against this.

    For example, education is necessary to persuade voters – no matter their political affiliation - reforms in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in their best interests.

    First the projections of Social Security and Medicare's long term insolvency are not exactly a great secret. The information is publicly available and discussions over the long term solvency of the programs have been going on since the early 2000s. Second said reforms are not in the voters best interest, not when most will be dead before the programs reach a point of actual insolvency. Third, thank you again for making an argument over the merits of representative democracy over mob rule.

    No I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves and right now… That’s not what you posted. You wrote, It was Low level bureaucrats, if the President wanted this done he could have …


    You had already come to a conclusion based upon an audit, not an investigation. And once again you find yourself backtracking.

    I let the available facts speak for themselves. It appeared to be isolated to geographic area and at the time there was a lack of evidence suggesting that it occurred anywhere else. Now as that dolt Issa releases more and more transcripts the more that view is supported.


    Look at what you are advocating in this thread: An uninformed citizenry and a big and secretive federal government.

    Never argued for that. I treat my representatives like I treat the management of the sports teams I follow, trust them to competently do their jobs until I know better one way or the other. That's precisely how citizens are supposed to function with their government and thats exactly how the founders designed their government to work.

    A huge and growing bureaucracy acting in secret – what could possibly go wrong”?!

    There you go again, never advocated a bigger government, I believe I used the term smart government to advocate a Govt that adequately meets the needs of a growing populace and growing economy. I've already stated that our bureaucracy is presently too large.

    Whether it’s labeled “socialism” or “state-ism” it’s leading us down a path that even members of the Obama administration have called unsustainable (while they do nothing about it).

    The Obama administration has made proposals to reduce the size of government. Unfortunately since the winged monkeys of Grover Norquist are opposed to any kind of revenue increases said proposals have been dead on arrival.

    You are right about one thing: This argument is all but over – except the one you’re having with yourself.

    There was no such argument. However, this will be my last post. Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.
     
  17. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    946
    Ratings:
    +62
    The public sees social media making mainstream media irrelevant. The problem is, you can't trust a thing you see on social media. But the public doesn't know...for the most part...that very little of the information is vetted like traditional journalists have to do. Whether you like or hate mainstream media, the public prefers the crap in the National Enquirer and social media much more.
    Rent the movie "Idiocracy" if you want to see what 2030 will look like in America..I've spent 36 years in the mainstream media and I won't spend anymore time. The public gets what it deserves.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    Too much of what is advertised as "News" is actually opinion and commentary. The fact that many so called "News" organizations are actually corporate mouthpieces. The way things are now we have actually devolved back to the 20's and 30's when Big money ran the government and owned the media. The laws and institutions that were put in place to correct this have been systematically torn down since 1980 and hence we are seeing the same things happening all over again. Corporations controlling the media, Big Business controlling the government by buying it, Financial chaos, the loss of rights for the working class. The complete undermining of the institutions that helped bring about a middle class.

    It's more important to keep up with honey boo boo and who's knocked up who then what is going on in our world.

    Ignorance and misinformation are the allies of the elite.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. fanindaup

    fanindaup Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +60
    it's got electrolytes.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page