Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.
Immediate benefits of the Reform bill signing. I know many of you will not acknowledge these, but food for thought for those that are still unclear what's is involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to fret bob, I'm not into the "bunker" mentality. If it comes to the Oba-brownshirts and martial law I shall do what is necessary. Y'd best hope it never comes to that, for once the path of anarchy is embarked upon there is NO turning back.
This bill, if passed, has not seen it's last challenge. Not even it's first legally, which will be states' nullification by 10th amendment challenges and constitutional challenges against a too broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Enacting law, in what is fortunately still a constitutional republic, doth not make certain said law will ever be applied. Best start seriously studying YOUR Constitution unless you are, as Obama, an avowed Marxist and believe in the UASS (Union of American Socialist States), the path we will have embarked upon.
My wonder is just how long and how far do we have to have our freedoms eroded, including freedom of choice as citizens to be the masters of OUR OWN DESTINY, before you left-leaning folks will realize one reality. The more the "government " shifts the tax burden to the supposed "rich", the more the rich will take their assets out of the country. They didn't get rich by being ignorant. What do YOU do when the "redistribution of the wealth" honey-pot dries up? Since you have no respect for the lessons of history I'll tell you. The society and government fails and almost overnight. What was originally an appeal to the working class came to be recognized as a "class envy" divide and conquer agenda and after much tyrannical oppression everywhere it was tried...it failed and collapsed in upon itself. How is it necessary for this healthcare bill to fund "black" and other "minority" colleges and universities IN PARTICULAR and TERMINATE college loan programs for the middle-income? It does that you know, right here... H.R. 4872, THE HEALTH CARE & EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT of 2010. Section 2101. Federal Pell Grants. Amends the Higher Education Act to include mandatory funding for the Pell Grant. This provides additional mandatory funding to augment funds appropriated to increase the federal maximum Pell Grant award by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The mandatory component of the funding is determined by inflating the previous year’s total and subtracting the maximum award provided for in the appropriations act for the previous year or $4860, whichever is greater. Beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year, the maximum Pell award will be at the 2017-2018 level. (Pell grants are educational grants exclusviely for qualifed 'low-income' recipients only.) Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low-income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non-tribal serving institutions. (Aid exclusively dispensed on "racist" based agenda to foster continuing support of such folks.) Section 2207. Termination of Unsubsidized Stafford loans for Middle-Income Borrowers. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Unsubsidized Stafford loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010. (Cancellation of loan assistance to "middle-income" read as white mainly, in yet another "racist" based Oba-agenda.)
Is it sinking in at all what is going on here?
They must continually seed the society with an appearance of taking from the rich to give to the poor. What betterway that to isolate by racial and economic standards to encourage envy and anger? It's the subtle seeding of and subliminal inculcation of class envy and dependency upon "government". The minorities, all of them, become the enablers of tyrannical, elitist oppressors who will ultimately fail them.
You've got to ask yourself...Why the rush to this ObaCare? And after HillaryCare failed so miserably as another "progressive" takeover agenda. Why NOT fix what is broken without creating an entire NEW bureaucracy (the Republican alternative)? That would be the "reasonable" thing to do and it doesn't have to be a piecemeal endeavor either. It can be a complete approach to reforming the entire system. Obama COULD HAVE gone that way, couldn't he?
he didn't, because that way doesnt give him, in the person of the entirety of the Executive Branch of government...CONTROL. That word is key. To usurp an existing system totally you need CONTROL elements.
If you are not a Marxist or socialist then you must come to realize that in supporting this health industry takeover you are enabling the first step toward usurping the entire system of government. The groundwork of control via the bailout and other incursions of the federal government into the private system has set the agenda. Ignoring the undeniable accumulating debt and doubt in the international markets of us, America, to EVER commit to spending discipline will precipitate the beginning of the end with a reduction in our international credit rating DOWN from triple A. That will start the spiraling upwards of interest rates that may make the Carter years look like child's play. WE, on the right, believe that Obama has this socialist agenda, because continuing on the outrageous spending and debt accumulation REALITY we're now embarked upon can only result in economic disaster for America. That fact, which he and his advisors well understand, despite their BS denials, means there is an intent about their machinations. The Rahm Man's create a crisis and take advantage of it Alinsky school of thought is alive and well in The White House..
I'm asking this rhetorically so you ask yourself some of these questions, NOT seeking a new discussion 'off-topic' on this thread, so please don't respond, just think about it. You want another topic thread on this I'l start it with this comment.
"[Some House Democrats are apparently selling their vote on healthcare reform for jobs at places like NASA -- but they're receiving a stern warning from one conservative senator about the ramifications of such behavior.
Human Events reports that retiring Congressman Bart Gordon (D-Tennessee) has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote -- and that Representative John Tanner, another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as a U.S. ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.
When at the White House recently, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D-Florida) also reportedly was seeking a special NASA deal in exchange for a "yes" vote on healthcare.]" "[Source]": House healthcare votes for sale (OneNewsNow.com)
__________________________________________________ _____________ "[Obama now selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
(posted 3/4/010)
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democratswho voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”
More dirty Chicago Politics from the White House.]" ["Source]": Obama now selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
__________________________________________________ _____________ There is no limit he won't exceed in his quest for CONTROL and his totalitarian latter-day Marxist state.
Thanks florida.bob but I've been slowly stocking the bunker since Lehman and Bear bit the dust. That's when I figured things ain't right in America.
Not only stocking the bunker, but lowered my debt, moved my money and invested in sustainable tangibles that will weather the depression better than cash.
3 years later with riots in various European cities, spending bills that do nothing but add more debt, increasing joblessness and slow government takeover of our industries....I don't think I made a bad move.
Other links just spread FUD by sensationalizing a lot of the points in the bill. Honestly, I think some people's real complaint is change...no longer can you just choose to go without healthcare. All I hear people complaining about is the "tax" - and the bill was revised just like I figured it would be to clarify what the deal is...specifically, page 203, which essentially says that it's a fine, not a tax, because a tax often has an exemption, is eligible for deduction, or is eligible for a waiver of some kind, whereas a fine is levied against an individual as a result of a failure to comply with something. Meaning that if you choose not to pay for the insurance, you will get that fine sanctioned, and no matter how many tax credits and deductions you apply, you will never be able to offset that amount.
From what I read in the bill, a lot of it is good if you're in good health and wanting to do the right thing. Know why?
- If you are one of select few whose employer does not offer health insurance, they now will be forced to offer you healthcare under the government option. Of course, you can choose not to have it and just pay the fee. You'd be spending money either way anyway, so this change would be transparent to most. But the difference is, no longer can you go without insurance and then rack up a 5-figure bill because you got injured randomly and walk away from it. I consider that a good thing.
- If your employer already offers health insurance and you take advantage of it, nothing changes for you except the quality of the hospitals and doctors and the types of care given. Now I know some are pissed that they can no longer throw their Botox treatments underneath their healthcare but you know what...it is what it is.
I won't speak on Medicaid and Medicare and dying and all of that because it doesn't concern me at present. What I care about right now is the cost of things. Big Business likes to knee jerk react when money is taken from them - and I imagine that insurers will hike insurance rates since they can no longer price gouge, causing employers to drop their partial insurance payments for provided insurance. Then the question is, how much better/worse is the government option vs. the private option? There will be a lot of decisions to be made, but it really pans out like what Federal student loans used to be: Go to Direct Loans and get all sorts of options, with no benefits or rebates or rate reductions, or go to a private lender and get a rebate check after making payments, and a rate reduction after 2 years of paying? If you really look at this bill, it's strikingly similar to that program.
Which begs the question: Are people really just pissed that they can now no longer go without insurance? Are they pissed because the government is telling them that they have to have insurance? Or are they pissed because of the fine levied for not carrying insurance when they have the ability to pay for it? Seems to me a simple matter of getting around the problem: Get insurance. Am I missing something (besides the whole "Freedom of choice" argument)?
Stupak and company to vote yes, at least according to Politico.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
floriba.bob
