And just how many times was it used on a bill that is this controversial and that involves this much government takeover of our economy?

Don't bother looking it up...the answer is NEVER.

Writerbuckeye wrote: And just how many times was it used on a bill that is this controversial and that involves this much government takeover of our economy?

Don't bother looking it up...the answer is NEVER.

Why does that matter?

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Swamp Fox wrote: The "self executing" rule fascinated me, as I was unaware that the Democrats would do anything as Unamerican as secretly voting not to vote on health care and sneak it past us. I had to find out just how many times in the past the Democrats used this sneaky underhanded and socialist method of getting what they wanted by this device. I was stunned when I discovered that the Democratic House under Speaker Tip O'Neil used this dastardly device 20 separate times to get things passed in the 99th Congress without a vote. Not to be outdone, House Speaker Jim O'Neil used it 18 more times in the 100th Congress to slip things past us. 38 times those evil Democrats snuck things past us by invoking this probably Pinko tactic that smacks of totalitarianism. To be fair I checked out whether the Republicans would stoop to these low handed socialistic tactics. Here is what I found. In the 104th Congress Republican Speaker "Newt" Gingrich used this tactic 38 times. In the 105th Congress, it was used 52 times...again under Republican leadership. Dennis Hasterd, Republican Speaker for the 106 and 107 and 108th Congresses used it a total of 112 times all together, for a grand total of 194 times that the Republican Congressional leadership used the very same thing that is being loudly criticized by our Conservative friends now.
I guess the rule is, if it's something you don't agree with, it's automatically Unamerican and totalitarian, but if it suits your political position, it's ok. I think what I'm driving at here is, what's good for the goose, is generally considered good for the gander.

This rule has been unconstitutional every time it has been used. Period.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: And just how many times was it used on a bill that is this controversial and that involves this much government takeover of our economy?

Don't bother looking it up...the answer is NEVER.

Why does that matter?

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

I agree with both points. It is never a good step to take. But, I also believe that some instances can and will be worse.

Republicans will win the battle in November, but Obama has won the war now that it appears Obamacare is going to become the law of the land.

Repealing this thing will be nearly impossible, as there are going to be things in there that people do like. By wrapping a few shiny objects in poison pills, Democrats have created a situation where in order to repeal it Republicans will need control of all 3 branches of government as well as the political will to tell however many millions of people they would lose their insurance by reinstating pre-existing conditions/rescission/lifetime limits and all of the other practices insurance companies use as there would be a massive purge of the rosters in a few years of the newly insured under Obamacare that wouldn't be looked at twice if the insurance companies weren't required to insure them under the new law.

Like Social Security and Medicare, Republicans did not like them when they were created but never could get rid of them. I see the same problem with Obamacare in that people are going to get used to having it once the initial shock wheres off and the sky doesn't fall, and then it is going to quickly become politically impossible to get rid of. Yet another large entitlement that we can't afford.

I was curious though, is there anyone on the board under the age of 26 (other with kids that would be applicable) that are going to hop back on mom and dad's insurance that can't right now because of the age restriction currently in place?

IggyPride00 wrote:
I was curious though, is there anyone on the board under the age of 26 (other with kids that would be applicable) that are going to hop back on mom and dad's insurance that can't right now because of the age restriction currently in place?

I was going to, as I was bumped off my parents insurance last January. So, I was a good year without insurance. Then, I finally landed a position that had benefits.

I also largely agree with your analysis as well. It will probably pass, won't be as bad as advertised and will be nearly impossible to turn back.

GOP report today - Obamacare unleashes vast new IRS powers, IRS will hire >12

To all:
If you want to really get yr blood boiling, read this short (9 page) report. It will make you want to descend on DC and raise absolute HELL with those voting in favor of this reeking, venomous obscenity of a bill.

Keep up the calls to yr congressional. The Democrats are losing votes from congressmen under pressure frm their outraged constituents. So the calls and e-mails are working! They still are 10 votes short after 2 weeks of incredible pressure, intimidation and threats. Pro-life congressionals like Bart Stupak are getting death threats for promising to oppose this bill. We all saw what ACORN, SEIU and AFL-CIO goons would do to elderly town-hall protesters last August. You can imagine what the unions are threatening now for congressmen on the fence.

I wouldn't be surprised if more congressmen privately plan to oppose this horror but dare not reveal their intentions until the floor vote. The latest I've seen suggests Democratic congressmen are as frightened of their leaders as they are of their constituents.

Also, I just read the Democrats may violate their 72-hr advance notice rule and hold a vote any time, as soon as they think they have the votes. They know that if representatives go home to their districts for Easter without voting, they'll catch all-fired hell frm their constituents - and that will be the end of Obamacare. So what if it mean s another broken promise?

John in Baltimore
,,,,,,,,

GOP: Democratic Health Plan Gives IRS Unfair Clout - NewsMax.com, 3-18-10

The Democrats’ healthcare bill vastly expands the responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service and would give the IRS an unfair amount of clout in dealing with taxpayers, according to a report ( http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf) that Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee released today.

“If the Democrats’ healthcare bill becomes law, the IRS could have to hire more than 16,000 additional agents, auditors and other workers just to enforce all the new taxes and penalties,” said Michigan Republican Dave Camp, ranking member of the committee. “It is a dangerous expansion of the IRS’s power and reach into the lives of virtually every American.”

Highlights of report, entitled “The Wrong Prescription: Democrats’ Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority,” include these points:

IRS agents will verify whether you have “acceptable” health coverage
IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove you have purchased “minimum essential coverage”
IRS can confiscate your tax refund
IRS audits are likely to increase
IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new healthcare program this decade
IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans
Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by citizens earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)

The Republicans noted that, despite all these new mandates the Democrats would prohibit the IRS from imposing these same taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants.

Dark, dark times / BIG GOVERNMENT and FORCE staring you in the face ....

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Link doesn't work Quaker. Please try and add it. Also ,add the NewsMax link. You know the rules.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obamacare-Democrats-healthcare-IRS/2010/03/18/id/353209

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/tom-price-healthcare-democrats/2010/03/20/id/353358
unbelievable!!


Obama on Saturday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Far from being the ‘Great Communicator', I think we (the media) are questioning whether he knows how to communicate at all because he hasn’t ever successfully explained how the healthcare reform system actually is going to work," Fineman says, "and that is why people are so skeptical about him." ...http://newsmax.com/

QuakerOats wrote:
Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by citizens earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)

The Republicans noted that, despite all these new mandates the Democrats would prohibit the IRS from imposing these same taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants.

And this from the prez who repeatedly promised that anyone making under $225k- their taxes would not go up a dime. (If cap-and-tax goes through, the energy companies will surely pass that along to their customers as well.)

Putting aside all the other nasty things about this bill, the burden it will place on an already struggling economy is unfathomable. Get ready for 4 years of tax increases (and Medicare cuts) so that we can all get the government to have complete ownership of our health and well-being by 2014.

Every last Dem who votes for this abomination (or is it Obamanation?) needs to be held accountable for the hatchet-job they're doing to this country.

Someone seemed to be channeling their inner "Belly" at the rally it appears. I thought the Browning sign was creative.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/u.s._bishops_final_plea_to_congressmen_do_not_pass_pro-abortion_health_care_bill/

Sadly, their pleas are going to fall on deaf ears, as are the pleas, logical arguments, constitutional standards, and angry reactions from everyday Americans.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Someone seemed to be channeling their inner "Belly" at the rally it appears. I thought the Browning sign was creative.

So what they're pretty much saying is that you should shoot someone who votes for the healthcare reform bill

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/20/protesters-hurl-slurs-and-spit-at-democrats/?fbid=vdUQQtGCKoZ

The actions of this group of protest were deplorable and disgusting. The Tea Party should come out and condemn these actions and words

These people should be ashamed of themselves

IggyPride00 wrote:

Someone seemed to be channeling their inner "Belly" at the rally it appears. I thought the Browning sign was creative.

I doubt you thought it was creative. You are just bottom feeding and trying to paint those that are opposed to this health care legislation as nutcakes who got their fingers on the trigger ready to blow away any politician who votes for it.

Not surprisingly Gibby took the bait.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I was going to, as I was bumped off my parents insurance last January. So, I was a good year without insurance. Then, I finally landed a position that had benefits.

During this year without insurance did you have a cell phone, internet, or cable/satellite TV?

If your answer is yes to any of the above and you became gravely ill during that year, who should bear the financial consequences other than you personally?

A young healthy individual in this age group with the financial means to provide himself with cell phone, internet, cable/satellite TV, or anything beyond the necessities of life, should rightfully provide himself with financial protection against a catastrophic health care situation. If an individual with the financial means fails to do so, rightfully the individual must financially be responsible for his/her decision.

The liberal blogs are on fire with joy about the fundamental transformation of America that is going to take place later today. Many appear to not care about the immediate election results this year because they appear more than willing to concede the battle because they see this as winning the war.

The Labor Unions particularly are feeling real good given all the goodies they extracted in the process. AFSCME in fact took the time to release this dig at the GOP to Kos and the other liberal blog sites.

Much as I enjoyed the Tea Party signs today, I think this is rather amusing as well.

From the folks at AFSCME, a little health care reform for Republicans:




Among other goodies, the kit includes:

* Hand Sanitizer: Much-needed protection from handling the $34 million the GOP has received from the Insurance industry.

* Glenn Beck Tongue Depressor: Because Americans deserve to hear the facts about insurance company abuses, not demagoguery and fake indignation.

* McCain Eye Drops: To remind Americans that, contrary to their crocodile tears of concern for seniors, Republican leaders from John McCain to Mitch McConnell to Newt Gingrich have bashed and trashed Medicare at every turn.

I was comparing the original Social Security Act with the current health care bill, and if anyone thinks that the current bill is representative of a "bigger government" bill than was the Social Security Act, I would beg to differ with you. We heard in those days how this bill would be the end of our democratic principles, it would be socialistic, it would even be communistic. Now, 75 years or so later, we still have it and I'm betting if we didn't there would be millions without the ability to live at all. It doesn't seem to be much of an issue with the Conservatives any more. The only thing Republicans of that era could say about the Social Security Act was NO, NO, NO. What was their answer to the elderly, the infirmed, children born into situations that were deplorable and not in any way the fault of the children left essentially to fend for themselves? It reminds me a little of the current paradox in Conservative philosophy concerning abortion. They are absolutely against it, as I am in certain cases, but as far as health care is concerned, all these kids need to do is to get their good for nothing irresponsible parents to give up their cell phone, internet, and a couple of other creature comforts and evidently they can then afford the cost of private insurance for things like childhood cancer, other catastrophic illnesses that strike children, and all the rest.

By the way, although most of you already know this, the Democratic Leadership in Congress has decided not to do what the Republicans did 192 times. They are going to seek passage through a regular vote. I am glad they did this, but I fear for the children that have no protection in this debate. They need more than NO, NO, NO. In the immortal words of Robert Redford in the film "The Candidate"......
"They subsidize trains, they subsidize cars, why not subsidize people"? I would tend to agree.

I also think, for the record, that we have definitely identified the wrong group as the bottom feeders. People who make signs about shooting their opponents might be kidding but these signs are hateful and ignorant. I don't think very many folks who have been the target of hate and violence in the past find much difference between these signs and other signs of yesteryear that said things like "colored" placed over the doorways into restrooms located "around back" in the segregation days of the 50's and 60's. (and evidently for some, the current time as well.)

We make 'em up as we go along

Amazing

Was Thomas Jefferson a "bottom feeder"?
What about "hateful and ignorant"?
"deplorable and disgusting"?
Should T.J. have been "ashamed of himself" for uttering/writing those words?
Would it have been better if Thomas Jefferson made a nifty sign on a stick?

For the record, I know the "times were different back then" stuff. And even though I would never want anybody to do anything drastic (violence), I think the sentiment is the same with both cases.
This sort of government encroachment was never the intention of the group of people who formed our government, The Revolutionaries.

Also, I don't care if people started protesting this today, yesterday or 40 years ago - it matters not.
What matters is that they are, and it's high time! The time has come for the government to check itself. Of course we all know that the government will never release the hold it has now, so the first and easiest step is voting.

You are out of context. This argument that you present is an apples and oranges situation. I think Thomas Jefferson was a great American who had tremendous vision and intelligence. We are talking about passing a Bill to insure that millions of Americans under-insured or not insured at all receive assistance to remedy that injustice. Every day people are being told that their health insurance just ended and people are desperately looking for a solution that can provide hard working Americans dignity in their old age. Our government has been guilty of many things over the years. I don't think Social Security recipients would want their benefits cut off if you asked them. Was that a big government project? Sure it was? Is the current bill expensive? Sure it is. It is also expensive to build nuclear weapons and engage in never ending wars and bail out banks and auto companies, but we do that. I'm simply saying that when our common everyday good people need help Conservatives balk. If we can save auto companies and planes and trains, why can't we do the same for people? It's not a socialist plot to take over the country. It's a "plot" to help Americans who desperately need the same kind of help we give to corporations and other conglomerates. I think jefferson would heartily approve since he wanted us to be a nation of small farmers and deplored the idea that we would turn in to an industrial entity. Actually, I think it matters a great deal that times have changed in this country massively since the time of Thomas Jefferson, and if he were here today and saw what has happened, I wouldn't want to bet against his support for helping the common man. That's what he wanted us to be.

So tell me, why is the takeover of college loans by the federal government necessary in this bill?

Why isn't something as simple as allowing insurance sales across state lines a part of this bill?

Why are trial attorneys allowed to go unscathed but insurance companies demonized -- oh wait, that's right they contribute more $$ to the Dems than just about any other group.

And as for your screed above about how all these folks were left to fend for themselves...this country has done a marvelous job of using private charity to help those in need, and quite successfully, too.

Of course, another area this administration is targeting to eliminate is charitable deductions; which will essentially make government the only provider of help to those who need it.

Is that REALLY the America you want to see in the future?