Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Reading of the Constitution

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Reading of the Constitution
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jan 8, 2011 4:21 AM
Nice theater, but I liked the reading, especially as it was done in a non-partisan way. That's probably the last non-partisan thing we will see from this body for the next two years. It's also a fair guess that a large majority of legislation the House passes will never make it into actual law. They will be the epitome of a "do-nothing" Congress.
Jan 7, 2011 11:21pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 8, 2011 4:50 PM
stlouiedipalma;629680 wrote:Nice theater, but I liked the reading, especially as it was done in a non-partisan way. That's probably the last non-partisan thing we will see from this body for the next two years. It's also a fair guess that a large majority of legislation the House passes will never make it into actual law. They will be the epitome of a "do-nothing" Congress.
Typical leftist thinking. What you're saying is the Repubs in the House will introduce bills designed to improve America (IE: defunding ObamaKare, insuring cap & tax never sees the light of day, etc., etc.) and the Dems in the Senate and the White House will block it or veto it. The bills never become law...and then the Dems can blame the Repubs for doing nothing.
Jan 8, 2011 11:50am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 8, 2011 4:54 PM
BoatShoes;629597 wrote:I could be wrong but I think many of those faulty estimates were made by the Congress and perhaps Congressmen with vested interests in getting their legislation passed; Hence, the creation of the CBONear the bottom it suggests, to me at least, that the CBO would have thought those estimates to be different. The CBO is non-partisan (supposedly). I'm not saying the CBO is gospel or anything or free for from the influence of partisan lobbyists but I thought it fair to suggest that projections made by Congress and Congressional committees may be different than that of the CBO...

The CBO is a joke. I'm going to agree that it isn't as internally partisan as some may think, but they spit out partisan results for what they are given. They are the ultimate GIGO (garbage in-garbage out) bureaucracy. For example, during the Obamakare propaganda-machine's heyday about a year ago, they fed the CBO garbage such as a $500,000,000,000 cut in Medicare, no "doc-fix" to amend pay rates for Medicare patients, and assumed all Americans would be covered by all insurance companies. None of these things were EVER going to be true, but the CBO was mandated to "score" the results, based on this garbage. Well, guess what...they came back and declared Obamakare would somehow save $100,000,000,000 in 10 years....with only 6 years of benefits. What bullshit they were given and spewed forth. The Left proclaimed them as so wise and unfettered. I think Boehner and the gang should revisit this with the truth and base the outcomes on equal numbers of years of taxes and benefits. The CBO is a manipulated joke of an organization and is controlled by whomever controls the Congress. Non partisan my ass.
Jan 8, 2011 11:54am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 8, 2011 5:09 PM
BGFalcons82;629887 wrote:I think Boehner and the gang should revisit this with the truth and base the outcomes on equal numbers of years of taxes and benefits. The CBO is a manipulated joke of an organization and is controlled by whomever controls the Congress. Non partisan my ass.
And then the White House and the Obama lovers in the media will cry foul and attempt to convince Americans that Republicans hate old people, want our "poor" to die in the streets, and think our people should die rather than allowing our benevolent and highly efficient government control our personal health care decisions. Bank on it.
Jan 8, 2011 12:09pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 8, 2011 5:25 PM
believer;629899 wrote:And then the White House and the Obama lovers in the media will cry foul and attempt to convince Americans that Republicans hate old people, want our "poor" to die in the streets, and think our people should die rather than allowing our benevolent and highly efficient government control our personal health care decisions. Bank on it.

Yep, they are already trying it. I saw a story on CNN yesterday about how Arizona budget cuts forced off a patient somehow off a kidney transplant list and then that patient ended up dieing.
I sat there with a co-worker and we both just said, really, they are really pulling this stunt so soon?
Jan 8, 2011 12:25pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 8, 2011 5:47 PM
Cheap tactic that I don't like.

However I do find it interesting that believer put poor in quotes.
Jan 8, 2011 12:47pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 8, 2011 6:14 PM
ptown_trojans_1;629923 wrote:Yep, they are already trying it. I saw a story on CNN yesterday about how Arizona budget cuts forced off a patient somehow off a kidney transplant list and then that patient ended up dieing.
I sat there with a co-worker and we both just said, really, they are really pulling this stunt so soon?

I'll call it the whining of America. It's going to be very loud, very often, and very much paraded in front of us. It will be portrayed that there is nothing that can be cut, only evil rich scoundrel Republicans who should pay for everything and taxed even more upon their death. Yep...the answer will be to keep hands off of all entitlements and the dependency class shouldn't have to pay for millionaire's tax breaks. A daily dose, if not hourly, will be forthcoming. The real story will be how long the Republicans can take it or give it right back to them. The "tear-jerker" stories are already being lined up and polished. The only "good cut" is a military one we'll come to find.

To me, the future of our republic depends on how much of this the Congress can take. We are less than 5 years away from having at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year go for paying to service the debt and nothing else. Who will be whining then?
Jan 8, 2011 1:14pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jan 8, 2011 9:17 PM
believer;629880 wrote:Typical leftist thinking. What you're saying is the Repubs in the House will introduce bills designed to improve America (IE: defunding ObamaKare, insuring cap & tax never sees the light of day, etc., etc.) and the Dems in the Senate and the White House will block it or veto it. The bills never become law...and then the Dems can blame the Repubs for doing nothing.
Not leftist thinking so much as being realistic. As for the second part of your statement, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you may think is an improvement can be seen by others as a gigantic step backward. It was OK for Rebublicans to vote "no" as a bloc these past two years, but now it is suddenly wrong in your view.
Jan 8, 2011 4:17pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Jan 9, 2011 2:33 AM
BoatShoes;629595 wrote:I mean don't you face at least some burden of proof to provide evidence that the CBO is wrong? At least Majorspark provided a link...

CBO added what was given them. The crap legislation is what doubled counted. The links have been discuss over and over. I will Google it on my phone if you really want.

I am sorry but anyone who truly believes Obamacare will lower the deficit is completely ignorant of the reality of the situation.
Jan 8, 2011 9:33pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 9, 2011 6:27 PM
jmog;630319 wrote:CBO added what was given them. The crap legislation is what doubled counted. The links have been discuss over and over. I will Google it on my phone if you really want.

I am sorry but anyone who truly believes Obamacare will lower the deficit is completely ignorant of the reality of the situation.

We are all free to speculate to our harts content about it's impact on the deficit. The mere fact that you continue to refer to it as "Obamacare" shows that your mind is made up and no amount of facts contrary will cause you to change your mind. The facts are that the present health care system is not efficent, too costly, shifts cost to the people who do pay, and ultimately shifts cost to the taxpayers anyway. I do agree that there needs to be some modifications in the legislation. In my opinion it will save taxpayers money in the long run by slowing down the unsustainable growth rate we had in the current system.

The issue of is basic health care a right or a privilege to those who can afford it is what really separates the ideologies.
Jan 9, 2011 1:27pm
L

Lakebluestreaks

Member

40 posts
Jan 9, 2011 6:59 PM
Why is it any different than someone referring to the tax cuts as "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy"?
Jan 9, 2011 1:59pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 9, 2011 7:20 PM
Lakebluestreaks;630900 wrote:Why is it any different than someone referring to the tax cuts as "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy"?

It's not. Both are wrong.
Jan 9, 2011 2:20pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 9, 2011 10:40 PM
Lakebluestreaks;630900 wrote:Why is it any different than someone referring to the tax cuts as "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy"?

It isn't.

I wish people would criticize the tax cuts as unfunded/not including matching budget cuts instead of as some sort of scheme to protect the rich. I think that's a much stronger arguing point against them.
Jan 9, 2011 5:40pm
Apple's avatar

Apple

Prost!

2,620 posts
Jan 10, 2011 12:15 AM
I Wear Pants;631217 wrote:It isn't.

I wish people would criticize the tax cuts as unfunded/not including matching budget cuts instead of as some sort of scheme to protect the rich. I think that's a much stronger arguing point against them.
Repubs might be able to make some hay by taking up your "unfunded" terminology. Anything that puts the budget over the $200 billion taken in each month could literally be labeled as unfunded and adding to the debt ceiling.
Jan 9, 2011 7:15pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 10, 2011 1:12 AM
But then they'd have to do the same to their precious military.
Jan 9, 2011 8:12pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Jan 10, 2011 4:02 AM
Apple;631330 wrote:Repubs might be able to make some hay by taking up your "unfunded" terminology. Anything that puts the budget over the $200 billion taken in each month could literally be labeled as unfunded and adding to the debt ceiling.
I Wear Pants;631433 wrote:But then they'd have to do the same to their precious military.

Well, he did say "anything", so I'm guessing military would be included in that?

Careful, Pants, you're starting to remind me of Gibby :p
Jan 9, 2011 11:02pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 10, 2011 4:06 AM
No, then I would have mentioned something about the right trying to kill homeless and blamed Bush for the shooting yesterday. :)

I still think those of us who didn't think the tax cuts being extended for the wealthy would have been better off displaying our disdain for the policy by voicing our concerns about the cuts not being funded and adding to the debt rather than take the "they're just trying to make the rich richer" route.
Jan 9, 2011 11:06pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 10, 2011 2:01 PM
I Wear Pants;631683 wrote:No, then I would have mentioned something about the right trying to kill homeless and blamed Bush for the shooting yesterday. :)

Oh Lord, that's coming isn't it? We should start a pool for the first time a pundit blames Bush. I'll take Tuesday, noon.
Jan 10, 2011 9:01am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 10, 2011 2:31 PM
BGFalcons82;631903 wrote:Oh Lord, that's coming isn't it? We should start a pool for the first time a pundit blames Bush. I'll take Tuesday, noon.

I will take that bet. Let me know when you find one.
Jan 10, 2011 9:31am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 10, 2011 9:08 PM
BGFalcons82;631903 wrote:Oh Lord, that's coming isn't it? We should start a pool for the first time a pundit blames Bush. I'll take Tuesday, noon.
Tuesday 2:30.
Jan 10, 2011 4:08pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 10, 2011 9:55 PM
I Wear Pants;632452 wrote:Tuesday 2:30.

You might both be as delusional as the idiot in Arizona.
Jan 10, 2011 4:55pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 10, 2011 10:04 PM
W will get a pass on this one...too much Palin Derangement Syndrome out there.
Jan 10, 2011 5:04pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 10, 2011 10:06 PM
fish82;632521 wrote:W will get a pass on this one...too much Palin Derangement Syndrome out there.

Yep.
Jan 10, 2011 5:06pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 11, 2011 4:13 AM
BoatShoes;629597 wrote:I could be wrong but I think many of those faulty estimates were made by the Congress and perhaps Congressmen with vested interests in getting their legislation passed; Hence, the creation of the CBONear the bottom it suggests, to me at least, that the CBO would have thought those estimates to be different. The CBO is non-partisan (supposedly). I'm not saying the CBO is gospel or anything or free for from the influence of partisan lobbyists but I thought it fair to suggest that projections made by Congress and Congressional committees may be different than that of the CBO...

You are not wrong. My post was confusing by noting that the article I cited reflected on past CBO projections and the paragraph I quoted had a lot of horrible congressional estimates. Congress's estimates are worse and I would say the CBO's are better but still don't make the cut and are not reliable. As I noted in my post the director of the CBO is appointed by the two of the most partisan members of congress. If they happen to be of the same party the political pressure would be much greater.

Another article with take on the CBO.

In the case of Medicaid DSH — a program that reimburses states for payments to hospitals that treat Medicaid and uninsured patients — CBO estimated in 1987 that payments would amount to less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was $17 billion.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/congressional-budget-office-consistently-wrong-on-health-care-estimates/#ixzz1AhAUmAKE

There is politics in play with the CBO. There are good people in the CBO that do their best. But at times they are being asked to make these 10yr budget projections. Basically break out the crystal ball. Trust me there is pressure to make the numbers work when predicting the future. They have a lot of leeway. Its nothing more that an educated guess.

Long term budgets are nearly impossible to hit. Predicting the free market and government policy changes 10yrs out is simply impossible and will never be accurate. Boat you and I could not project our simple personal budgets accurately 10yrs out. The massive federal bureaucracy with its toxic mix of politics, money and power, makes these projections IMO nothing more than a political football. No one can accurately budget 10yrs into the future.
Jan 10, 2011 11:13pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 11, 2011 7:02 AM
Bigdogg;630865 wrote:The issue of is basic health care a right or a privilege to those who can afford it is what really separates the ideologies.

I disagree that ideologies are divided this broadly. The constitution enumerates some of our rights. The 9th amendment clearly states that it is not a complete list and that those rights specifically enumerated should not be used to deny the right the people to possess the abundance of all their rights. The right of the people to equal access of their health care needs I would say it is a most definitely a right.

The divide comes with what level of governance has the constitutional authority to aid those that may lack the financial resources to access that right. I would argue that this authority falls into the hands of states and the people (local government and private entities) to decide.

Take the enumerated right to bare arms, which holds just as much importance as a non enumerated right under the constitution. What do we do with those that can't financially provide themselves with the tools needed to access this right? An AR-15 or a Glock 19 on the federal dime? I don't think so.

I guess this makes me some evil right wing nutbag because I don't believe every domestic issue that this nation faces needs to be solved by the all knowing benevolent gods in Washington. Nor do I believe they have the constitutional authority to do so.
Jan 11, 2011 2:02am