Adios Barry Soetoro

How are the politicians explaining this total government failure?

Even With Obamacare, 29 Million People Are Uninsured: Here’s Why

a reply to: SaturnFX

Well, I guess that the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" did originate with Christianity, so I can see how you would think that this would be okay.

That said, Jesus advocated charity and taking care of others at the personal level, not because of a national law that threatens punishment if you don't. I do my part as an individual human being--probably more like the part of multiple people when it comes to helping out those in need. I don't need you or the federal government to tell me how I should do it, or to what extent (and at the threat of federal punishment).

Demon--there's that issue with credibility again. It seems as though you never had any with which to start concerning this topic, so disregard the fact that you're losing any--there was none to lose.

Best regards...and keep on judging people, like the Good Book says you should.

Oh, wait...

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: LifeMode
And how many millions more had to pay an uncommon amount of money to make that a reality. Way more than 20 million.

so?
20 million people got healthcare. consider of those 20 million people who got life saving treatment they otherwise wouldn't have.

my tears of sadness for people paying a few bucks to keep someone else alive isn't really manifesting just yet..will try it once I lose my soul.

~~~~~~~~~~~

As I said, don't let facts get in the way of your feels...
btw, whats your thoughts on global warming and other fun questions?

Each year, when I pay that "fee" for not having medical coverage I get a little more angry. Not because I don't care about my fellow man. It's because I am no fan of every nasty thing that has been pushed onto us in the guise of good that is just another act of Orwellian slavery. Always good for the receiver and too bad for the guy that has to carry the burden. In the meantime, that hidden presence of the corporatocracy is pocketing money like there is no tomorrow.

~~~~~~~~

Global warming will end. It will end after world war three when there are far far fewer homosapiens using computers and driving around automobiles. And the problem isn't governments per se, the problem is unrealistic people wanting this to happen without understanding what it will do to their lives. If the governments actually did what their people wanted the government would not last long.

a reply to: SaturnFX

The main difference, if it hasn't been stated already, is that funding the military is a constitutional obligation.

The PPACA, while it is a law, is not a constitutional obligation, and barely even passed mustard as being constitutional in and of itself--the fine if you do not purchase healthcare had to be redefined as a tax, otherwise it's illegal.

But we all know it is not a tax, and Obama expressly stated as much after the ruling.

Furthermore, at least we veterans have earned our taxpayer-funded healthcare (which I only use for my annual check-ups and my asthma, which my service to protect your right to sound like a jackass on the internet caused) by doing more than just existing within our nation's borders and claiming that Obama has been fabulous.

But I forget--you don't care what we demons think...

Barry... I didn't like one bit how the media greased the skids for your entry into the office of President with a middle name like "Hussein" which they would have politically flogged any other candidate with. Wasn't a fan of your tonal quality of voice and smooth control which equates to mind control for the subjective masses. But, don't judge a book by it's cover so they say.

So now, Audios my man! Thank you for not getting the world nuked. Thank you for running up the national credit card. We can all still go shopping with the specter of financial collapse as a mild annoyance rasping along eerily behind us instead of directly in our face. Thank you for making me research the corruption behind the Nobel Prize process. Thank you for a personality like warm oatmeal.

Oh, and thank you for leaving.

originally posted by: xuenchen
How are the politicians explaining this total government failure?

Even With Obamacare, 29 Million People Are Uninsured: Here’s Why

It sounds to me like your article is making the case that the federal government isn't powerful enough because employers and states had the ability to screw up health coverage.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SaturnFX

The main difference, if it hasn't been stated already, is that funding the military is a constitutional obligation.

Constitutionally speaking, we aren't meant to have a standing army for more than 2 years, of which congress needs to once again decide its relevance and allocate funds if necessary (during wars). The intent is clear, but this was twisted to simply make a gigantic Romanesque style standing army for all time

Constitution allows for a navy, not army. the navy is meant as a stopgap for piracy and to ensure commerce

Furthermore, at least we veterans have earned our taxpayer-funded healthcare

That's your opinion. my opinion..doesn't matter as its overruled and my money is robbed from me to pay for a unconstitutional standing army for all times, and to then pay the former warriors a endless array of health and preference benefits (of which there is nothing at all about and is just done for...feels or something).

If you want to be in Rome, then treat soldiers like roman soldiers. they get paid a salary while in the army, get then a stipend at the end of their service and a thumbs up saying good luck, back to the streets.

After all, we don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul, do we

Keep sucking at the government teet though until it dries up.



Full disclosure: I respect the troops and am absolutely happy with taxes paying for vets benefits, education, and whatever post-service support they may need. Just showing the absolute hypocracy in your views here.
I also do think a 2 year mandatory requirement for people to serve in either a armed forces or some civil service utility style program should be instituted across the US and let all people under a certain wage to get free services same as a vet once put in place.

But hey, lets focus on just the constitution
...and tear down the army now!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
How are the politicians explaining this total government failure?

Even With Obamacare, 29 Million People Are Uninsured: Here’s Why

It sounds to me like your article is making the case that the federal government isn't powerful enough because employers and states had the ability to screw up health coverage.

Which means the government is a failure.

Same failures as poverty.

They solve zero.

Man, I wish Obama was still president. - said no future person ever

a reply to: SaturnFX

The two-year limit concerns funding a standing Army, but since we (supposedly) pass a budget on a yearly basis, which includes funding the military, then that point is moot because we only fund the military one year at a time--a shorter duration than the two-year time limit specified in the Constitution. The Army is funded in one large group (to include the other branches of the military) because of the founding of the DoD in 1947. Prior to that, it was funded separately per the constitution, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not in the mood to look it up).

When you claim that it was meant to be around for only two years during war, that is inaccurate (assuming that's the point that you're trying to make). Yes, the Navy was meant to be permanent, but that doesn't mean that the standing Army wasn't, either--it was only to be funded bi-annually as a means to ensure that it doesn't cause problems with the freedom of Americans or become an unwarranted threat to the government itself (a military coup).

So, your cry to "tear down the army now" is not in line with the Constitution, nor with the intent of the two-year funding limit--it was a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists and the opposing views of the need for a standing Army at all.

But to claim that its existence goes against the Constitution is quite ridiculous, even if you note that it is allowed in the Constitution at the start of your comment.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The founders were very anti military though. They recognized the practical need for a Navy, but they thought standing armies were dangerous things to have around. They would be very much against what we have now.

a reply to: Aazadan

I agree that SOME of the founders were anti-standing army, but not all--and even though some/many were against the idea, they also understood that Congress didn't function as it does now, and the what-if scenario of America needing an Army and Congress not being in session to approve funding was all too real.

As I noted--this was the compromise for the need versus the concern.

Now, I totally agree with you that the founding fathers would be wholly disappointed in what our military has become, both in size and evolved purpose (world policing).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SaturnFX
Yes, the Navy was meant to be permanent, but that doesn't mean that the standing Army wasn't, either--it was only to be funded bi-annually as a means to ensure that it doesn't cause problems with the freedom of Americans or become an unwarranted threat to the government itself (a military coup).

You are now arguing it as a lawyer arguing a loophole, knowing the intention is something, but saying since its worded in a way that allows for continuous funding (in case we were in a protracted war) then that's totally fine also...

you know its disingenuous, but technically okay...just absolutely not what the founding fathers were creating.

And most are okay with it. I am..it serves to give people jobs who need help and focus. that's perfectly reasonable as a government stimulus job...personally I would rather have some sort of federal building forces creating space elevators and vast underground farmland and cities, etc...creation vs destruction, but whatever...jobs are jobs

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Snarl
This is what happens when the unqualified are vaulted into the highest seat of power in the land. You'd think we would have learned from the likes of many who have preceded him.

He sucked royally at the job ... but I can't bring myself to blame hime exclusively for the mess we all now find ourselves in.

I truly fear what follows him.

Unqualified? He served (most) of one term in the Senate, was in state government for something like 12 years, and by academic credentials is a certified expert on Constitutional Law.

Name one president who has come into the office in the past 50 years with a better resume than that.

Being a "certified expert" on constitutional law means nothing when you break the law and/or do things that are blatantly unconstitutional.

With words like that, I hope Trump has got your name on his short list for AG.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I didn't see a single snowflake last winter.
my experience therefore is that winter doesn't exist anymore.
(also I live in Florida, but that's beside the point).

Clearly since my experience of a snowless winter is for realz, that's how it must be universally...my antidotal example = objective reality...right?

Yeah, except I didn't draw any universal conclusions based on my personal experience . . . as you have in the above. I was merely commenting on the fact that my personal experience didn't match up with what was stated in the article you linked to. So your comparison isn't apt.

So many bias bound third rate minds on ATS; pretending to levels of objectivity, sophistication and an intellectual capacity that they just don't posses. And civility and decorum? As if.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
You are now arguing it as a lawyer arguing a loophole, knowing the intention is something, but saying since its worded in a way that allows for continuous funding (in case we were in a protracted war) then that's totally fine also...

you know its disingenuous, but technically okay...just absolutely not what the founding fathers were creating.

You are incorrect and correct at the same time. Like I noted, this was a compromise between those who thought a standing army was a necessary evil and those who viewed it as an HOV lane to tyranny and fiscal waste. So we got what we have, and we're at where we're at.

I would suggest looking into it this part of the Constitution a little deeper, because I'm not wrong, and it's pretty easy to find the historical documentation to back my point up.

And most are okay with it. I am..it serves to give people jobs who need help and focus. that's perfectly reasonable as a government stimulus job...personally I would rather have some sort of federal building forces creating space elevators and vast underground farmland and cities, etc...creation vs destruction, but whatever...jobs are jobs

I think that we should only employ a standing military strong enough to protect our own country, not to fly (or float) around the world threatening democracy to countries that didn't ask for it. We must stop being the world police--that's my stance on it, anyhow, and it's the stance of many military members that I know.

But I do agree that, if we're going to spend such money, it'd be nice if some more of it were transferred to things that could actually make a positive difference in the world versus perpetuating global conflict.