Patterico's Pontifications

Ah, Patterico. What will the headline read? Most voters, and I am serious here, only read the headlines.

Trust me, the headline won’t be BHO approval at 37%.

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:55 am

63% of the country is officially racist.

the bhead (fbcafb) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:56 am

Whatever happened to the deft OFA campaign footwork?

I blame Denis McDonough, not ready for Politburo.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:56 am

Gosh, I wonder what this is about:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/obama-meets-with-krauthammer-gigot-174603.html

I have a theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgIBVr9TIMY

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:56 am

Sure, Republicans’ numbers are cratering worse.

I dislike that form of moral equivalence, in which the truly disreputable and inept (ie, Obama) is somehow equated with the less (or non-) disreputable or inept (ie, Republicans/conservatives). Liberals know about that dynamic and exploit it for all its worth. In turn, far too many people fall for crap like that. Hence, the existence of places like the city of Detroit, blue-state America in general, or nations that run the gamut from Mexico to France.

Mark (58ea35) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:58 am

Krauhammer still thinks the Republicans should go easy to avoid being blamed, so that makes him Obama’s ally.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:01 am

Ditto Byron York, who has been very critical of Senate Republicans like Lee and Cruz.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:03 am

I think I am right, DRJ. Like Boris said: “One poof and you’re a goof!”

Or a tool. Didn’t Lenin call them “useful fools”?

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:04 am

6, 7. No doubt His Unholiness played the Sympathy, It’s for the Children, and You’re all so Reasonable cards, along with his usual TEA Baggers will Be Our Undoing.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:07 am

The GOP should not be taking the blame for the shutdown.

They should be claiming the credit.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:43 am

Obama rates a Big Zer0 in my book.

Colonel Haiku (a8bbc8) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:46 am

The GOP should also be making the case that:

“No matter what the Congress does or doesn’t do with the debt limit, the US cannot default unless the President wants to; we have 10 times the money coming in than we need to cover the interest. Social Security takes in more than it pays out, so that’s safe, too. Don’t let them stampede you.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:50 am

11-You realize that approval is a yes or no litmus test, right?

It is funny that rethugs have small approval ratings yet control the house. cough*Gerrymandering*cough

Ohio is a fine example of rethugs cheating the electorate. Dirty politics. Crying foul because the president isn’t “negotiating” over a bill that has already passed through congress (which is where/when negotiations are constitutionally supposed to happen), then claiming it is unconstitutional (what did the supreme court say about it?).

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:50 am

Oh, geee, look at the new troll with the same line as the old troll.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:00 am

We have the same lines because they are correct. The liberal equivalent would be for Democrats to refuse to pass a budget because they claim the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional and they wish to renegotiate it. Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:05 am

Sounds like a song, Kevin M.

And remember, 15% of that approval rating is credit to the press covering for him.

That leaves about an honest 22%;
two people who like the job the President is doing for every 1 that doesn’t believe we landed on the moon. (IIRC)

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:09 am

cough*Gerrymandering*cough

Yes, all of those suburban GOP voters were pushed out into “ring” districts to enable the boundary drawers to comply with the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by the DoJ/Office of Civil Rights requiring Majority Minority Districts in most Urban Cores, where most of the Minority population resides.
Now, why is that the fault of the GOP?

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:12 am

They have the same lines because they all read off of the same page of the same play-book.

Journolist LIves!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:13 am

Just because the ACA is (so far) a valid law doesn’t mean the House is obligated to appropriate money for its operation. It’s entirely the House’s prerogative to propose all spending, and if it doesn’t want to spend money on something then it doesn’t get spent. That’s how it works; that’s how it has always worked. Over the years Congress has declined to fund all sorts of things, and they don’t get done, no matter how many laws require them. How is this different?

Congress has appropriated money for everything except 0bamacare; it’s the Senate and the President who refuse to accept that funding.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:13 am

hubnub/ello/Tlaloc/LeftWingFool,

Your Stalinist narrative is cute.
Those Code Pink talking points may impress your friends while lounging around in the sauna at the bathhouse, but they don’t work with people who actually work for a living and have a grasp of American history and the Constitution.

37%
and
f
a
l
l
i
n
g

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:14 am

hubnub,

You understand one of the House’s duties is appropriating funds to run government programs like ObamaCare, right? And also that the process of government funding is a different legal issue than “renegotiating” Constitutional Amendments?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:15 am

“Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.”

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:15 am

Hubnub, the Supreme Court said that the ACA was unconstitutional in part. You never mention that in your trolling.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:16 am

Yes, all of those suburban GOP voters were pushed out into “ring” districts to enable the boundary drawers to comply with the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by the DoJ/Office of Civil Rights requiring Majority Minority Districts in most Urban Cores, where most of the Minority population resides.
Now, why is that the fault of the GOP?

Actually that is the GOP’s fault. It was the Bush I’s DOJ that pushed and enforced this requirement, and it did so for nakedly partisan reasons, precisely to achieve the result you describe. Of course to fight this the Ds would have to repudiate that policy, which they can’t do publicly or they’ll piss off the black voters.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:16 am

Other than that, good job parroting Judge Sarokin’s flawed analogy.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:16 am

HuffNPuff only knows what he’s told to know.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:16 am

24- The Left was fine with it as long as it kept electing a Dem-controlled House.
Now, with the “country class” turning more and more anti big-government, and the TEA Party movement, those reliable Blue-Dog votes go to GOP candidates, and the House seemingly is firmly in the hands of the GOP – if they can keep it (Thank You, Mr. Franklin).

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:20 am

21-Cute talking points. Repeat them often enough and you’ll believe them. The Affordable Care Act has passed. The time to negotiate was 2009.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:21 am

Just because the ACA is (so far) a valid law doesn’t mean the House is obligated to appropriate money for its operation.

Yup. And it’s been done. It’s perfectly legal for me to own a machine gun if I fill out the right forms and pay the tax. But Congress told the BATFE not to spend a single penny reading my forms or cashing my check. For a while now. Maybe not the best example but I’m sure there are others.

nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:22 am

There is a difference between talking points and logic.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:23 am

Say, HuffNPuff, what happened to that Progressive Wet-Dream called the 18th-Amendment, aka The Volstead Act?
That wasn’t so inviolate was it?
And, I’d tread lightly around DRJ, if you know what’s in your best interest.
If you think Hockey-Mom’s are tough….

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:24 am

Hubnub, our immigration law passed. Time to negotiate was 1987.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:24 am

Exactly my point. The speaker is holding the country hostage over these talking points when logic dictates that he missed his chance to negotiate. Four years too late. He has the votes to pass a clean budget but he won’t.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:25 am

But keep drinking that Ted Cruz kool aid. Once you get past that initial bitter taste I hear it is bliss.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:26 am

the Supreme Court said that the ACA was unconstitutional in part.

Indeed. It also said that a legal mandate to buy insurance would be unconstitutional. And that in deciding whether something is a mandate the court would look at what the thing is, not at what Congress chooses to call it. The reason the ACA’s “mandate” isn’t one is because it’s perfectly legal to choose not to buy the insurance and to pay the tax instead, and the tax is set low enough to make that a reasonable choice. If it were raised to a punitive level it would become a penalty, and automatically be unconstitutional. So even if no more challenges succeed, you’re very limited in what you can do when people choose not to join.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:26 am

nk, another example is that Congress refuses to fund process to restore rights under GCA of ’68.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:26 am

For the record, laws can be changed. I’m certain American laws didn’t forever get set in stone in 2009.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:27 am

Did they in 1987?

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:28 am

Hubnub, koolaid? NPS acting like Obama Brownshirts shows who is drinking koolaid. Bought your Sam Browne belt yet?

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:28 am

hubnub,

You should put down your latest issue of The Advocate, and pick up a copy of The Constitution.
Slavery was legal, but that doesn’t mean it was set in stone—it was debated every year. By your logic, slavery should still be the law of the land simply because Congress and the Supreme Court allowed for it once upon a time.

The reason there are House elections every two years is so that the American electorate can change out representatives they feel are not representing them in the context of laws and the appropriations of the American people’s money. That’s what happened in the People’s Branch of Congress in both 2010 and 2012.

Are you really this ignorant of the Constitution ? Or do you believe this is the only available argument to defend the Holy Obamessiah’s untenable position ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:28 am

Maybe not the best example but I’m sure there are others.

Actually it’s a perfect example, and one of the ones I had in mind. There’s also the law allowing felons to recover their right to bear arms if they can prove they’re not dangerous. Congress has not appropriated money for the BATFE to process those applications, so it’s impossible for non-dangerous felons to exercise this right. (Though I imagine some time soon the courts will say that since they are being deprived of a constitutional right, if their applications aren’t processed after a reasonable period they’re entitled to automatic approval or something.)

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:30 am

40-So you want to re-litigate the constitutionality of ACA literally months after it was found constitutional? That sounds like a reasonable position.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:31 am

I am a Ted Cruz happy camper. We’re talking about shutdowns how to reduce government and debt. We’re not talking about tax increases or amnesty. Plus Obama’s poll numbers show his message isn’t working. That’s amazing given where we were a year ago.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:32 am

That is a better example, SPQR, and closer to home for a lot more people.

nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:32 am

He has the votes to pass a clean budget but he won’t.

He’s passed a clean budget. It just doesn’t include any money for the ACA. There’s no reason it has to. How does that make it “dirty”?

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:32 am

Laws are passed and can not be changed?

Which begs the question:

Did Congress ever repeal the Fugitive Slave Act?

Yes, I realize that the 13th-A outlawed slavery, but did Congress go through the Federal Register, and repeal every entry dealing with slavery, or are these “laws” still on the books?

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:33 am

So you want to re-litigate the constitutionality of ACA literally months after it was found constitutional?

There are still many challenges yet to be heard. But that’s irrelevant here. Congress isn’t litigating it. It’s just not funding it. Why should it?

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:34 am

(Though I imagine some time soon the courts will say that since they are being deprived of a constitutional right, if their applications aren’t processed after a reasonable period they’re entitled to automatic approval or something.)

I’m out of the loop for some time now, but that defense should be raised in every Project Safe Neighborhood prosecution.

nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:34 am

47-See where that crybaby mentality gets the rethugs in 2014…

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:36 am

Congress has not appropriated money for the BATFE to process those applications

Actually, Congress inserts a rider in each DoJ/ATF appropriation specifically forbidding the ATF from expending any funds on this task, and has for several decades (makes it easier when you have budgeting by CR, as all that precedes carries forward).

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:36 am

But keep drinking that Ted Cruz kool aid. Once you get past that initial bitter taste I hear it is bliss.

It’s not Kool Aid™, it’s a refreshing and bracing tonic what is good for you, and delicious with gin.

(For the record, I still don’t think Cruz should ever be president. I want him to stay in the Senate for 10-15 years, and then move on to the Supreme Court.)

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:37 am

hubnub,

Why do you believe slavery should still be the law of the land ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:38 am

He’s not nicknamed “Big Zer0” for nothing. Empty suited, devoid of constructive ideas, hyper-truculent, preening, self-reverential narcissist…

Colonel Haiku (eacb1f) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:39 am

Yes, he’ll be a perfect replacement for the retiring Chief Justice Roberts.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:39 am

There you go again, Colonel; sugar-coating things.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:40 am

Another day, another gimp-suited troll…

Colonel Haiku (eacb1f) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:40 am

JD will tell us for sure but I’m certain hubbub is a returning commenter. He has a tell.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:43 am

52 Nice straw man.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:43 am

A tell, other than being bug-nuts?

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:44 am

57-Ban Him! Ban Him Hard!

*drum beats*

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:44 am

hubnub,

Since Congress and the Supreme Court determined that slavery was legal, why did a future Congress have the “right” to change its mind on the issue ?
Once a law is deemed Constitutional, isn’t it ‘set in stone,’ as you imply ?

Does a future Congress retain the right to repeal a law ? I know you won’t respond, because you know the answer repeals your goofball assertions about the Unaffordable Care Act.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:50 am

I think people are being a little unfair to the troll. He hasn’t said or implied that laws can never be changed or repealed. Just that this one hasn’t been. To repeal the ACA requires both houses and the president to agree, and that isn’t going to happen until at least 2017. So he’s quite right to say that as of now it’s the law.

Where he’s wrong is in claiming that since it’s the law the House has some sort of duty to fund it, whether it likes it or not. That’s ridiculous. The House doesn’t have to fund anything it doesn’t like.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:52 am

R.I.P. Phillip Chevron, guitarist for The Pogues

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:52 am

Hubnub is tye. It’s tell is quite obvious.

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:52 am

Feelings of persecution… Check
Visions of heroic stand among the enemy… Check
Auditory hallucinations… Check
Pre-victory mincing… Double-check

Colonel Haiku (180a66) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:52 am

Milhouse, with all due respect, friend, you’ve probably missed out on some of his assertions in other threads, posted under different names.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:54 am

And since the ACA isn’t really budget-neutral, and never was (the CBO head himself openly wrote that the CBO declaration of budget neutrality was rigged and shouldn’t be taken seriously), it’s perfectly reasonable to make its repeal, defunding, or waiver a condition of borrowing new money.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:55 am

Exactly my point. The speaker is holding the country hostage over these talking points when logic dictates that he missed his chance to negotiate. Four years too late. He has the votes to pass a clean budget but he won’t.

@33 Comment by hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:25 am

This what the useful idiots are defending/justifying/rationalizing:

Bash (CNN): But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

Reid: Why would we want to do that?

hubnub knows, its called taking hostages.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:58 am

6, 7. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:01 am and 8:03 am

.Krauhammer still thinks the Republicans should go easy to avoid being blamed, so that makes him Obama’s ally.

Ditto Byron York, who has been very critical of Senate Republicans like Lee and Cruz.

Also, the Republican Governor’s conference, headed by Bobby Jindal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/republican-governors-clash-with-washington-over-federal-shutdown.html

But he’s a politicians, so Obama doesn’t want to call attention to him. Also, Jindal is being critical of Obama:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obama-thinks-my-way-or-the-highway-Bobby-Jindal-says/articleshow/23742485.cms

Jindal said that Obama thinks it is my way or the highway, and Obama actually responded to that in his press conference! (without mentioning Gov. Jindal. I didn’t know that’s where it came from, although perhaps that characterization is not original with him)

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:02 am

61. Once a law is deemed Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:50 am

Since Congress and the Supreme Court determined that slavery was legal, why did a future Congress have the “right” to change its mind on the issue ?

They DIDN’T, and they didn’t think they did.

They amended the constitution. Steven Spielberg recently made a movie about that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Now they forced some of the southern states to ratify that, on pains of not being “re-admitted” to the Union, but still, it was constitutional amendment, not a law.

They did regard themsleves as having the right to abolish slavery in the District of Colummbia. the compromise of 1850 had already removed the auctioning of slaves from there.

Some things that had power to do, they didn’t regard as particularly worth doing, like stopping the interstate transfer of slaves.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:10 am

I guess President Mean Girl read the poll.

http://1771.org/?page_id=1292

PRIVATELY FUNDED NATIONAL PARK WINS ITS BATTLE TO REMAIN OPEN!

…Just this morning we received the final absolute NO from the Dept. of Interior and were told the Farm would not open until the shutdown ended. An hour later the Park Police showed up and closed and barricaded the office gates with us inside. This has been a very rough week and we are profoundly grateful that this is ending.

Obviously, the decision would not have been reversed without the news coverage, forwarded emails, blogs, tweets, Facebook posts and personal appeals from all of you. People read about the Farm’s situation from across the country and have been so generous with words of encouragement, donations, purchasing goods from our website and buying memberships. Folks came up from Richmond today just to pick up livestock feed from the mill in Loudoun County as we have been uneasy about leaving the Farm unprotected.

We have no idea why the NPS changed its mind but we are very pleased that they did and hope that every group trying to operate on Federal lands has the same happy outcome.

These instructions to close down sites unnecessarily and in violation of their leases, contracts, licenses, or operating agreements have to be coming from the top.

Since these privately funded sites, some commercial and some run by non-profit foundations, receive no funding or services from the feds and have never been shut down before there was never a reason to shut them down. Which is why they’ve never been shut down before. They cover their own operating costs, upkeep, maintenance, and insurance. In the case of this Colonial Farm they receive local police and fire services.

Maybe now the federal landlord will stop acting like a spiteful medieval land barron and let the other private entities paying it rent reopen per their contractual agreements.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:10 am

“40-So you want to re-litigate the constitutionality of ACA literally months after it was found constitutional? That sounds like a reasonable position.”

It was found unconstitutional.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:11 am

Remember when the unpopular Obamacare was passed in 2009, shutting down employment growth? Remember how it led to the democrats losing the US House in 2010, the most democratic of the branches? I think those saying that Obamacare is law and cannot be reversed are truly desperate. This law isn’t going to get any more popular. Even the left doesn’t think it’s going to last… they just hope it sets up single payer.

That Obama was reelected is no mandate for Obamacare. Mitt Romney was the architect of Obamacare when he invented the idea of using Romneycare as a model for a national health care mandate. I suspect most of the politicians fighting against Obamacare will advance politically, and at least many of those fighting to support it will have some serious flip flopping to do very soon.

Dustin (303dca) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:12 am

Brown v Board of Education, people! Once the Court rules, we should never revisit even the most obvious errors, like the federal government coercing a private purchase in order to provide wealth transfer.

Hey, it’s not like socialism has ever failed anywhere.

Dustin (303dca) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:16 am

There is a hug(e) difference between Obama’s 37% and GWB’s 37%

GWB never had the liberals approval, his drop below 50% was the dissatisfaction from not being CONSERVATIVE enough.

Contrast that With Obama’s 37%, which means everyone outside those receiving his largess, hate him…. Because of the race issue, there has to be the intensity to push his numbers low, as expectations for his presidency were low to begin with, he said we were in tough economic times that they wouldn’t get better if at all, and yet – there they are 2 out of 3 think his a horrible president

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:19 am

he’s a horrible president, sorry, still getting electro shock treatments, screws up my grammer

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:20 am

12. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:50 am

The GOP should also be making the case that:

“No matter what the Congress does or doesn’t do with the debt limit, the US cannot default unless the President wants to; we have 10 times the money coming in than we need to cover the interest. Social Security takes in more than it pays out, so that’s safe, too. Don’t let them stampede you.”

The Obama Administration had the Treasury Department’s Inspector General issue a report that the secretary of the Treasury doesn’t have the right to priortize anything, or withhold money so there’d be enough to pay the debt.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/ig/Audit%20Reports%20and%20Testimonies/Debt%20Limit%20Response%20(Final%20with%20Signature).pdf (August 24, 2012 letter to The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Ranking Member
Committee on Finance United States Senate)

Prioritization of Payments Treasury officials stated that Treasury also reviewed the idea of attempting to prioritize the many payments made by the federal government each day.
Treasury noted that it makes more than 80 million payments per month, all of which have been authorized and appropriated by Congress.

According to a Treasury official, the payments cover a broad spectrum of purposes deemed
important by Congress. While Congress enacted these expenditures, it did not prioritize them, nor did it direct the President or the Treasury to pay some expenses and not pay others. As a result, Treasury officials determined that there is no fair or sensible way to pick and choose among the many bills that come due every day. Furthermore, because Congress has never provided guidance to the contrary, Treasury’s systems are designed to make each payment in the order it comes due.

That ignores the fact the President does have authority to impound payments, and that the House has passed a bill to allow this.

There is the objection that the software has not been written to allow this, but it doesn’t take a software genius to figure out a way to override the software. Just put in the amount needed to pay interest and principal on the debt, make that “payment” early enough to a special account, and pay interest and orinciple on the debt on that account.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:23 am

Obama’s 37% is also occurring without the bulk of the American people learning about his Gestapo NPS tactics and the shutdowns of key highways etc. Thanks to the MSM’s refusal to cover those events.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:25 am

Sammy,

Holy Moley, thank you for the Steve Spielberg lecture. I saw a screening of the film before it was released.
Now come back to planet earth.
I know the Amendment was passed to outlaw slavery, but future Congresses have passed laws that have dealt with the rights of black Americans that can be implied to mean that future Congresses have acted differently toward an issue than the way that a past Congress acted.

That’s the whole point with our hubnub and his various monnikers; he’s implying that since the Supreme Court ruled the ACA to be “Constitutional,” the ACA is settled law simply because it was passed by a past Congress, and that the ensuing Congresses (elected 2010, 2012,) don’t have the right to debate whether or not to appropriate funds for it.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:25 am

SPQR

I strongly doubt its even 37%

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:27 am

GWB never had the liberals approval, his drop below 50% was the dissatisfaction from not being CONSERVATIVE enough.

I think a lot of people never understood that.

In fact, I’d say that the GOP primary electorate doesn’t really get it, given that they moved from Bush to Mccain to Romney.

It is no surprise, then that the GOP’s approval rating is exactly where it belongs. The GOP paved the road to where we are today, including to Obama’s reelection, by treating Conservative voters and principles as though they are something to be ashamed of. Confident leadership on conservatism is exactly the way back to power, but the GOP doesn’t understand that power in and of itself is not the goal (if they understood this, why would they keep selecting candidates who have no argument but the false hope of electability?).

An lack of true concern for the future, as a culture, is a disease with symptoms everywhere you look, from waistlines to TV to the debt to idiocy in our schools. No GOP victory is going to fix that! We have the government we deserve.

Dustin (303dca) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:29 am

33. Exactly my point. The speaker is holding the country hostage over these talking points when logic dictates that he missed his chance to negotiate. Four years too late. He has the votes to pass a clean budget but he won’t.

Comment by hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:25 am

You have no point. This isn’t a renegotiation. It’s a fresh negotiation. The Congress that passed Obamacare was an entirely different Congress, the 111th Congress. This is the 113th US Congress.

It is unconstitutional to claim that what the 111th Congress did requires the 113th Congress to fund their laws. It is a Constitutional principle inherited from centuries of English common law that no legislature can bind a future legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. No Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress.

It’s settled law. It’s Constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled. The 113th Congress doesn’t have to fund an act of the 111th Congress. The time to negotiate that was over in 1787, hubnub.

Why do you hate the Constitution and Supreme Court?

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:34 am

So the rough contingency plan they had was, they stated, “a delayed payment regime. In other words, no payments would be made until they could all be made on a day by day basis.”

Meaning, if not enough money was on hand to cover all checks or direct deposits to be issued on November 1, they’d be issued on the next business day, November 4th, and none would be issued on November 1..

Which is, of course, not too bad for tax refunds or commercial payments, and maybe payroll, and even Social Security checks (you could even arrange with the majority of banks to give customers expecting Social Security checks and the like, an interest free loan at 0% for the period of the delay, funded by loans from the Federal Reserve) but it’s terrible to do that with anything traded on the open market as a cash equivalent.

The Treasury noted that, of course, under such system, the payemnts would lag more and more with time.

But for most things it would take some time to become critical.

The response to Senator Hatch also said that the prospect of the debt ceiling being reached was not a systemic risk of the type that should be contemplated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, since it was entirely within the control of the U.S. government.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:40 am

77. “the software has not been written to allow this”

I cannot wait for the day when the lots have fallen to select the rifle squad and the bullets are being handed out, that the last appeals for clemency return undeliverable and an impassioned cry is raised for pardon.

“We’re sorry, all circuits are currently busy. Please, hang up and try your call again later.”

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:40 am

79. The 13th amendment specifically gives Congress the right to pass apprpriate legislation. So it all stems from the amendment.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:41 am

79. The ACS is settled law for the time being.

It’s really a political point being made, not a legal point, i.e. important changes in law shouldn’t be made this way.

Especially if there an attempt to force one House to pass something and the president to sign it.

The public generally agrees.

A slight majority opposes Obamacare (although about one third of thise who oppose it agree that they oppose it because it’s not “liberal” enough)

A strong majority opposes making government funding conditional on changing the law. That includes of course the peolple who do not oppose the law.

I would note myself that this approach is basically ineffective in remedying many of the problems caused by Obamacare, and nobody has claimed that it would do so. (it might however, make it more financially unsound, which might create some pressure to change things)

Getting rid of the individual mandate – I don’t know if that would bring back many insurance policies, even if all dates are extended by one year.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:47 am

President Obama is deliberatly placing every reasonable idea for what to do when and if the debt limit is reached off the table, and talking up the 14th amendment borrowing of non debt as a possible way of dealing with this, except he says he doesn’t intend to.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:48 am

“…settled law…”

In every Budget Season, we are told about the inaccuracies of five and ten-year forecasts, in that a sitting Congress cannot compel the actions of a future Congress – except when The Left crosses their fingers and mumbles “Mother May I” or some other inanity.
Only a Constitutional Amendment can override the will of a future Congress, and I would bet a Dollar-to-a-DoNut that even that would be litigated.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:49 am

Gov’t funding through the 14th-A?
Does this President, and his allies, really want to provoke a Constitutional Crisis?
They just may bite off more than they bargained for.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:51 am

87. When in doubt speak in another language.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:52 am

78. Obama’s 37% is also occurring without the bulk of the American people learning about his Gestapo NPS tactics and the shutdowns of key highways etc. Thanks to the MSM’s refusal to cover those events.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:25 am

Actually, they did learn about it. It’s not an inside-the-beltway story. The MFM didn’t need to report it. It was a local/regional news story all across the country.

People in AZ and NV got to learn about it when the Gestapo NPS closed the Grand Canyon, started arresting people inside it, and then closed a state highway because people were removing barricades so they could look at the Grand Canyon. Then it was a local news story when the NPS kicked old people out of their privately owned residence. Etc., etc.

Is there a state where the NPS acting like a bunch of thugs wouldn’t be a story?

But I do agree it was probably that unhinged rant yesterday about how he won’t yesterday that’s having this impact. The beautiful thing is that Tiger Beat is convinced he’s a smooth talker. The more he’s in the public eye, the less popular whatever he’s selling becomes. In this case he’s selling himself and his ego. On the other hand his popularity goes up when he goes on vacation and stays away from the cameras.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:53 am

78. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:25 am

Obama’s 37% is also occurring without the bulk of the American people learning about his Gestapo NPS tactics and the shutdowns of key highways etc.

He should be losing a point or two every day, as the news permeates.

Thanks to the MSM’s refusal to cover those events.

People have many sources of news.

The thing that people may be missing is how much of this is actually under his conmtrol and not forced by the failure to pass acontinnuing resolution.

There are certain things he doesn’t have to stop.

There are even certain things he has no business stopping.

There are bills in Congress to restore funding for certain things.

The public may wish for the House to pass the Senate continuing resolution bill, but that doesn’t excuse what President Obama is doing.

Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:53 am

Dustin wrote,
“In fact, I’d say that the GOP primary electorate doesn’t really get it, given that they moved from Bush to Mccain to Romney.”

———–
Dustin, pal, you’re talking about the GOP primary electorate as if they’re somehow divorced from the nomination process. The GOP primary electorate is who nominated Bush, McCain, and Romney.
The problem is that there haven’t been enough conservatives in the GOP primary electorate to nominate a more conservative nominee.
Also, we only can nominate who runs. If a Reaganesque candidate isn’t on the primary ballot, then we can’t nominate him.
If you recall, there was a public push by movement conservatives (Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, et al) late during the 2008 primary season to support Romney, thereby attempting to deny the nomination to McCain. In other words, Romney was perceived to be the ‘conservative’ in 2008.
Whom among the slate of the 2012 primary do you think would have fared better than Romney ?
Santorum is a conservative and a great guy, but I’d have to think he comes across as a little too sanctimonious for the low information voters—and he got killed in his re-election bid for Senate in PA in 2006. Newt was the intellectual of the bunch, but he has a few messy divorces and sometimes lacks the gentle tact necessary for a general election. Bachmann’s mouth sometimes gets her in trouble. Herman Cain obviously had a wandering eye that the media was ready to hammer him for.
Romney ran an uninspired campaign, but I just don’t know who the better nominee could have been.

I sort of have a feeling that Mike Huckabee might have fared better because he’s probably the best most adept extermporaneous speaker we’ve ever had (although Cruz and Rubio may surpass him in the future). Also, Huckabee has so many parables and anecdotes on the tip of his tongue, that he would likely have blown Obama off the stage in all three debates, not just the first one, as Romney did. And Huckabee grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, and could have possibly stolen a lot of low information voters from Obama with his tales of how his father came home from work with grease all over his arms, etc.
We’ll never know how that would have played.

I’m not saying Huck would have necessarily won the election, but I’m just trying to figure out who would have fared better than Romney.
Of course, we all know that Huck didn’t even run.
But that’s the deal at the GOP primary ‘restaurant’—we can only order from the selections that appear on the menu.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:56 am

ES, I have always found Huckabee to be a populist in SoCon clothing. Populists are just socialists with smaller vocabulary.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:01 am

Do we rewrite the entire law code during every session of congress? Just checking.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:02 am

89. …Does this President, and his allies, really want to provoke a Constitutional Crisis?
They just may bite off more than they bargained for.

Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:51 am

Yes, and yes. They want to provoke a Constitutional crisis. Think of Obama as America’s Zelaya.

And yes they just may have bitten off more than they bargained for. Because they’re trying to provoke one with the SCOTUS at the same time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303464504579107500121585672.html

Race Case Denial

Obama officials tell colleges to ignore the recent Fisher ruling.

The article is behind the paywall but you can read it here.

http://therightscoop.com/doj-sends-letter-to-universities-telling-them-to-ignore-scotus-ruling-on-using-race-in-admissions/

WSJ – Obama Administration regulators have made a specialty of ignoring Congressional intent, and even black-letter law. Now they’re showing the same disdain for the Supreme Court with advice to universities about interpreting racial preferences in the wake of June’s Fisher v. University of Texas ruling.

In a September 27 letter to university presidents, civil rights officials from the Departments of Justice and Education wrote that the Court’s decision in Fisher means that universities can continue with their same racial-preference policies.

…That must be news to the Supreme Court, which in an 8-1 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rebuked Texas precisely because it had failed to heed Grutter. That decision said schools could use race in admissions but not as a dominant factor. In practice, however, the University of Texas like most other schools implemented a race-dependent admissions program and figured no one would notice. In Fisher, Justice Kennedy called that unacceptable and ordered courts to give universities “no deference” in subjecting racial preference policies to “strict scrutiny,” or the highest level of judicial review.

Long story short, they didn’t like the ruling. So they changed it.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:05 am

95. Do we rewrite the entire law code during every session of congress? Just checking.

Comment by hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:02 am

Yes.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:06 am

Sammy,

I’m not sure you understand that the House has the Constitutional authority to decide how to appropriate monies. So even if Nancy Pelosi’s Congress passed a law in 2009 that says that Americans get free ice cream courtesy of the federal government every Tuesday afternnon during the summer, the current Congress can refuse to appropriate money for that law which was passed by a PAST Congress.

This is why we have elections for the House every two years—-so that the electorate can make course corrections.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:06 am

Not the entire law code. That’s a ridiculous question. We rewrite laws all the time. And the ACA is not the entire law code.

I misread your question because it’s so loony tunes.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:07 am

I doubt if hubnub is really interested in discussing things honestly, and some of these things have likely been said already,
but a brief review of some history for those who may be passing through:

-After the election in 2009, President Obama’s general attitude was “elections have consequences, we won, tough for you”.
-His idea of “negotiating” was “bring a gun to a knife fight”.
-So there was no negotiation, and there was none necessary because of a stolen election for Senate in MN (Sen. Franken), and then procedural slight of hand and manipulation after Scott Brown was put into office from Massachusetts in large part due to his campaign promise to oppose ObamaCare.
-And Speaker Pelosi said there was no reason to negotiate, in fact there was no need even to read it, that it needed to passed first to find out what was in it.

-So, a Dem. controlled House and a filibuster proof Dem Senate and a Dem President passed a bill with zero repub input/support.
-Then the more that people got to find out what was in it, as Speaker Pelosi said, the more people realized they didn’t like it.

-Knowing that elections have consequences, the public responded by a sweeping defeat of dems in 2010 because the public did not like what the dems had done.
-Since then in 2012 as well there have been people sent to the Senate and House on the campaign promise to oppose ObamaCare.
-Unlike some, such as President “no more partisanship and record transparency” Obama, people like Ted Cruz have kept their promises.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:09 am

Steve57,

You asked hubnub (aka Tlaloc aka tye) why he hates the Constitution.

I think I have the answer; because in theory, the Constitution is getting in the way of his utopian authoritarian dream.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:14 am

Do we rewrite the entire law code during every session of congress? Just checking.

Do you object to the president delaying the employer mandate of the ACA? Do you believe that it was constitutional? Do you believe waivers to be constitutional? Do you believe these violate equal protection under the law?

Huitzilincuatec (f7d5ba) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:19 am

The thing that people may be missing is how much of this is actually under his conmtrol and not forced by the failure to pass acontinnuing resolution.

There are certain things he doesn’t have to stop.

There are even certain things he has no business stopping.

I don’t think they’re missing how much is under his control. There have been 18 government shutdowns and some things have never shut down.

Even in liberal San Francisco it’s news that the Cliff House has been shuttered simply because it’s on park service land. It’s never been closed during the prior shutdowns because it’s a famous, profitable restaurant that’s been a San Francisco landmark for 150 years. Putting all those people out of work and making it lose money is local news.

The people who own it have owned it since 1978, the year after the NPS became its new landlord. Don’t you think they know they’ve never been shutdown before? They’re losing millions in revenue, and they know this is entirely unnecessary. Based on the comments I’ve seen on the local stories about the Cliff House being forced to close so do the readers.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:20 am

ES @101, hubnub may very well be Barack Obama.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:22 am

76. Actually you seem uncharacteristically cogent and cogitative. Are you certain they’re not helping? I’m taking Celexa myself.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:24 am

I never thought that Obama’s approval rating would slip below 40%. I figured he would hold together the racial grievance crowd, the self-styled intellectuals, the guilt-ridden wealthy white liberals like Ed Asner, the army of Julias, and the government paycheck crowd. That would be enough to keep him above 40%. What must be happening is that the furloughed government employees are starting to register their disapproval at him. They probably don’t like ObamaCare either, and wish that Obama would just agree to the one-year delay if it meant getting them back to work. Maybe the GOP can salvage something out of this after all.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:29 am

Drudge headline is that IRS & White House exchanged private info about taxpayers…

Zoinks !

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:35 am

Does Congress re-write the laws each session?

No!
But, they could, if they wish, strip-out entire sections of the Federal Register and re-write them or just ignore the blank spots, if they could get the President to sign-off on it.
But, the point of the exclusions, exemptions, to BarryCare promulgated by the Executive Branch, is that the Executive is charged to ensure that laws (as written by the Legislative Branch) are faithfully executed – changing them is the function of the Legislative Branch.
It is called a Separation of Powers.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:38 am

Good luck, Stones. I bow out when I read about Romney being the architect of single-payer and father of ObamaCare… way too silly.

Colonel Haiku (879b60) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:46 am

The more he talks the more he’s got to sink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZSMdlINVAk

Who can watch this and not think Prom Queen is an idiot.

There’s just so much stupidity here. I’ll just leave it at this. How many of you pay your mortgage with a credit card?

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:47 am

Obama Job Approval at 37%

The AP poll appears to be an outlier. You can see a roundup of all the recent polls here:
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

They have the average approval/disapproval at 44/50

If there’s one lesson you guys really need to internalize from 2012 its to stop cherry picking polls.

Sure, Republicans’ numbers are cratering worse.

But we’re used to being hated. Obama isn’t.

Obama is never running for office again, republicans are. That kind of matters.

Tlaloc (d061fc) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:49 am

Obama is never running for office again, republicans are. That kind of matters.

Obama is the most narcissistic man — more so than even Clinton — to every occupy the White House. The negative poll numbers are going to get to him way more than they will bother, say, a Mitch McConnell.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:52 am

No, hubnub, you are just trolling.

But how did the Democrats dare call for the repeal of the Bush tax rates every year? How did they dare actually call this week for changes to our immigration law? Those were already enacted and the time for debate – according to you – long past.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:54 am

Actually, its clear that Obama became a lame duck long ago.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:55 am

Obama is the most narcissistic man — more so than even Clinton — to every occupy the White House. The negative poll numbers are going to get to him way more than they will bother, say, a Mitch McConnell.

Really? Cause usually one of the traits of narcissists is that they are immune to criticism, they always have a way of ratioalizing it.

On the other hand I think McConnell will pretty deeply feel yet another chance to become majority leader slip away.

Tlaloc (d061fc) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:05 pm

97- Yep. That sums up your lack of knowledge about our government. Thanks for playing sweetums.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:08 pm

hubnub, given the fact that you’ve already demonstrated your ignorance rather clearly … well, frankly its still not funny.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:14 pm

Trust me, the headline won’t be BHO approval at 37%.

“Republicans worry President’s approval rating poised for upsurge.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:19 pm

What other laws are unchangeable, tye?

JD (68654e) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:21 pm

115. “Cause usually one of the traits of narcissists is that they are immune to criticism, they always have a way of [rationalizing it away]”

Immune? No, nor inured. Dismissive of, arrogantly rejecting, misconstruing, …

Rather obviously, our Soft Bottomed Boi is hypersensitive to that criticism which actually reaches him, penetrating adoration of some excellence of his Unholiness.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:21 pm

hubnub @116, my knowledge of government is such that I at first couldn’t believe anyone would ask such a stupid question. As I said in my update:

99. Not the entire law code. That’s a ridiculous question. We rewrite laws all the time. And the ACA is not the entire law code.

I misread your question because it’s so loony tunes.

Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:07 am

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:22 pm

Kevin M., ROFL

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:23 pm

hubnub @116,

It’s a reflection on your incredible dishonesty that you ignored what I said in #99 so you could respond only to what I said in #97.

Thanks. You couldn’t have demonstrated you’re a lying douchebag any better if I had asked you to.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:25 pm

14: Oh, geee, look at the new troll with the same line as the old troll.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:00 am

15: We have the same lines because they are correct.

Comment by hubnub (29b511) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:05 am

I really think we had him when he accepted being a troll.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:29 pm

SPQR–

Choco rations.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:32 pm

Steve57, I still find the repetition of the false claim that the Supreme Court found ACA constitutional hilarious.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:36 pm

So do I SPQR, especially because the SCOTUS hasn’t heard all the challenges.

The SCOTUS already found the provision of the ACA that linked all Medicaid funding to the expansion of Medicaid unconstitutional. States are challenging other provisions.

Anyone who says the SCOTUS has found the ACA constitutional doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But then that’s redundant when talking hubnub.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:47 pm

I meant to say states and others with standing can challenge it on other provisions once now that we’re finding out what’s in it. I expect future challenges.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:53 pm

Karma, Dharma, what’s the diff?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/09/poll-dems-lose-lead-in-congressional-generic-ballot

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:59 pm

==But that’s the deal at the GOP primary ‘restaurant’—we can only order from the selections that appear on the menu.
Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:56 am==

I heart this line, ES!

elissa (8d66d6) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:03 pm

Steve57, I still find the repetition of the false claim that the Supreme Court found ACA constitutional hilarious.

old Steve Martin bit:

Wanna have some fun? Teach your kids to talk wrong! Imagine the teacher’s dismay on the first day of school, when a child raises their hand and asks, “May I mambo dogface on the banana patch?”

I’m starting to think you guys simply operate from a strange dictionary of reverse meanings. Take for instance the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the only supreme court challenge to the PPACA so far. The Supreme court held by 5-4 that the ACA was a constitutional use of congressional power.

So naturally you say that “the SCOTUS upheld the PPACA as constitutional” is false. In other words in the face of clear facts you say “May I mambo dogface on the banana patch?”

Tlaloc (358878) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:09 pm

130. Yes, I love this analogy as well. Colin Powell sups regularly but always runs without paying the tab.

Karl Rove evades the waitress before she can salt his tail.

After a century and a half serving its customers, the business fails for not serving those that lived in the neighborhood. They blew all their cash advertising to those across town who never darkened their door.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:12 pm

Karma, Dharma, what’s the diff?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/09/poll-dems-lose-lead-in-congressional-generic-ballot

*sigh*

Again? Okay fine. You need to learn not to cherry pick polls. Look at all the results in total:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

The average result is Dem +4 on the generic ballot.

Exit question: why do you insist on giving yourself bad info?

Tlaloc (358878) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:12 pm

Really? Cause usually one of the traits of narcissists is that they are immune to criticism, they always have a way of ratioalizing it.

And you don’t think that describes Obama? The guy who is famous for throwing others under the bus? They guy who continues to blame ihs predecessor for all of his own failures?

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:16 pm

Falalala – your heartfelt concern is noted. Aren’t you just precious?!

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:18 pm

Tlaloc, you are once again showing how incompetent you are. That was not the only challenge to the PPACA.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

ACA Medicaid expansion provision that removed all funding of Medicaid to states that did not fund the expansion ruled unconstitutional.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:27 pm

Tlaloc the Black Knight.

SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:33 pm

Checkers is more his style SPQR.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:35 pm

I’s just a flesh wound, SPQR, what is curious that with the high real unemployment, it actually hasn’t gone lower,

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:36 pm

I don’t think we should engage Tlaloc or tye without the results of a Wasserman Schultz first.

nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:37 pm

The situation has a certain nuance:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/07/partisans-dug-in-on-budget-health-care-impasse/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:40 pm

Comment by Tlaloc (358878) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:09 pm

Ah, here it is, the old “projection” defense.
The irony is strong with this one.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:41 pm

Good luck, Stones. I bow out when I read about Romney being the architect of single-payer and father of ObamaCare… way too silly.

Comment by Colonel Haiku (879b60) — 10/9/2013

My friend, I say this because it’s a proven fact. Romney wrote an op ed urging Obama to use the individual mandate (tax penalties as Romney put it) as a model for a national health care reform.

He also wrote about this in his book, and then was caught lying about this in a debate.

Unfortunately the hostility to conservatives in the GOP has made it very difficult for voters to have any good options in our primaries. The funding a RINO gets makes it difficult to compete, so all that’s ever left on the menu by the time my state (and most) have a say in the matter is generally not that great.

There was even the acts in Virginia, where Romney’s campaign staff, who also held office in Virginia, excluded conservatives from the ballot in an action the courts deemed unconstitution (unfortunately it was too late to fix).

Elections are not based on the preferences of the entire party, they are based on money, and thus the party has gotten less and less useful and more unpopular. More unpopular than Obama, even today.

Some who support progressive republicans accept this because they hope to keep getting their share of the entitlement pie. Some support it because they do not understand electability and really think Romney, the proven architect of the national individual mandate, is going to be able to effectively run against this position.

But the results speak for themselves. The model of nominating Mccain or Romney doesn’t work, no matter how clever the defenders of this practice may be.

Dustin (00497b) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:42 pm

133. With Congressional approval in the single digits you’re hoping for more than just a melt up to recapture the House, no?

This is day nine, longer than the average of all prior slowdowns.

‘We just keep refusing to negotiate and then,.., MAGIC happens.

TOTUS before Greek Columns all.over.again.

YEeaaarrrrgggghhh!!!

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:42 pm

And you don’t think that describes Obama? The guy who is famous for throwing others under the bus? They guy who continues to blame ihs predecessor for all of his own failures?

I think anyone who runs for president is a narcissist. I was merely pointing out that arguing both
-Obama is a narcissist, AND
-Obama will be affected by bad polling
is self contradictory.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:48 pm

143. Funny thing with all those who refuse to re-enact past massacres.

They just can’t help themselves, dragging out the broken, leached bones and tattered unis.

“The South will rise again!”

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:50 pm

Tlaloc, you are once again showing how incompetent you are. That was not the only challenge to the PPACA.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

ACA Medicaid expansion provision that removed all funding of Medicaid to states that did not fund the expansion ruled unconstitutional.

Somehow giving states the choice whether or not to participate in one small aspect of the PPACA hardly seems to be the same as finding the entire act to be unconstitutional.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:52 pm

145. We are unworthy, O Lord of the Flies. You know our vacillating will, our infirm loins, our spines of cartilage.

Give us your strength that we may vanquish your enemies, O Lord. Selah.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:55 pm

But finding that fines are taxes makes the whole thing Constitutional, and never to be amended, unless it is done by unconstitutional waiver.

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:56 pm

133. With Congressional approval in the single digits you’re hoping for more than just a melt up to recapture the House, no?

This is day nine, longer than the average of all prior slowdowns.

‘We just keep refusing to negotiate and then,.., MAGIC happens.

One of the worse aspects of a two arty system is that it’s a zero sum game. It is quite possible for dems to win purely because reps lose. And right now the right is doing a very good job of further tarnishing an already terrible brand. See for instance:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

or

http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/suicide-of-the-right/

or look at virginia where dems are pretty well set to take the gov and lt gov positions. The only one that’s really a question is the AG slot which the GOP *might* win.

or look at the various public infighting between factions on the front pages of the newspapers.

Honestly, is there any metric by which the GOP is doing well right now?

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:00 pm

“Somehow giving states the choice whether or not to participate in one small aspect of the PPACA hardly seems to be the same as finding the entire act to be unconstitutional.”

A stupid rebuttal since the Supreme Court never found the “entire act” but for the expansion coercion to be constitutional.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:02 pm

Interestingly though, EW Jackson is doing well, while Cuccinelli is floundering, in part becaus he has been backsliding re the McAuliffe onslaught, the latter could be a character out of the Blacklist,

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:08 pm

trolls–

kltpzyxM

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:10 pm

Raise your hand if you find falalala’s concern just touching.

I still want to know what other laws are inviolate.

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:13 pm

narciso, it is astonishing that the Democrats in Virginia would run such a completely corrupt bagman as McAuliffe.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:15 pm

A stupid rebuttal since the Supreme Court never found the “entire act” but for the expansion coercion to be constitutional.

True, since they also found the claimed authority for require insurance purchases to be unconstitutional. A fine would be unconstitutional. What ~~they~~ Roberts did was find that a small tax on those without insurance to fund medical services was constitutional, even though the statute had never called it a tax.

So, the statute as written was ENTIRELY unconstitutional, but the Chief basically rewrote a few words here and there and then found the insurance part of the law could stand.

Now, if the ~~fine~~ tax becomes large, it would seem that it too would be unconstitutional and there are many as-applied suits to be heard.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:15 pm

JD, it would be amusing to see a list from the troll.

Uh, not really. It would just be illustrative of something we already know – the troll’s incompetence.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:16 pm

~~for~~ to

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:16 pm

Kevin M., to correct you, with respect, the statute did not merely not call the penalty a “tax”, it actually explicitly stated that it was not a tax. And Democrats explicitly and repeatedly justified it as not being a tax.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:17 pm

SPQR, I thought so, but I did not want to claim that solely from memory.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:20 pm

BTW, has any court heard an equal-protection case regarding all the carve-outs and patronage waivers? You would think there would be some.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:22 pm

TaLaLa is as precious as a basket of newborn kittens and as soft and tender and pink as a baby mouse’s ear. I think I got a thang for him.

Colonel Haiku (0e505e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:28 pm

I think anyone who runs for president is a narcissist. I was merely pointing out that arguing both
-Obama is a narcissist, AND
-Obama will be affected by bad polling
is self contradictory.

There are lots of different models of narcissism, so your declaration that narcissists don’t care what others think isn’t entirely valid. Some narcissists are enraged, for instance, when they perceive that someone doesn’t recognize their beauty or their intelligence. This strikes me as largely the type of narcissist that Obama is — he tends to feel that we are all ingrates who don’t appreciate the incredible talents and abilities that he brings to the Presidency.

It would be really interesting to see where Obama ranked himself in intelligence among the 43 Presidents. A private ranking, not meant for public consumption. Who would want to bet that he has himself in the Top 5, perhaps the Top 3?

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:29 pm

147. Somehow giving states the choice whether or not to participate in one small aspect of the PPACA hardly seems to be the same as finding the entire act to be unconstitutional.

Comment by Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:52 pm

NFIB v. Sebelius didn’t challenge every provision of the act. It did ask the court to strike it down based on the lack of a severability clause if any one part of it were found unconstitutional. But the odds of that happening were long and the court declined to do so. Otherwise it challenged the ACA on certain grounds. The court never ruled that every other provision of the law except the Medicaid expansion was Constitutional.

The majority opinion ruled that Congress’ ability to impose mandates wasn’t unlimited. They ruled mandates can’t violate Constitutional protections such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

Guess what? There are a host of challenges to the law coming on freedom of religion grounds.

Also, Roberts ruled the penalty functioned as a tax because it wasn’t so large that individuals didn’t have a meaningful choice. So the “tax” can’t actually serve the purpose as written into the law. If too few people participate to pay the bills, Congress can’t jack up the tax to the point where it has the features of a penalty. If it compels people to by insurance it no longer is a tax but a penalty. Which according to the ruling would be unconstitutional.

But to have standing, first these groups or individuals had to have been actually harmed by the law.

Obamacare apologists act as if the entire law except for one teeny bitsy part has been examined by the SCOTUS and given the stamp of Constitutional approval. That just ain’t so. The length and complexity of the law, and the mixed bag of the decision with almost each judge concurring or dissenting from differing parts of the ruling practically guarantees challenges to Obamacare for years. NFIB v Sebelius wasn’t the last word on this law’s Constitutionality. Not by a long shot.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:31 pm

Kevin M., to correct you, with respect, the statute did not merely not call the penalty a “tax”, it actually explicitly stated that it was not a tax. And Democrats explicitly and repeatedly justified it as not being a tax.

Until it went to the Supreme Court and Obama’s own solicitor general argued that it was legal precisely because it was a tax, the argument that won over John Roberts. This administration is absolutely shameless.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:32 pm

Sorry, SPQR. You said the same thing but I didn’t see it because I wanted to refresh my memory about further challenges to the law.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:33 pm

narciso, it is astonishing that the Democrats in Virginia would run such a completely corrupt bagman as McAuliffe.

I think that “Democrats in Virginia” is now pretty much another way of saying government employees. Since when does that group care about honesty and ethics in government, just as long as the gravy train stays rolling on the tracks?

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:35 pm

Steve57, dude, like I’m gonna get upset? Bwahaha.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:38 pm

Yeah, Obama’s Spite House theme is really going to improve his popularity.

What a tool.

And as an aside, I’m going to tell every NPS employee I see in the future what slimebags they are as an agency.

I still think that this is all Hatch Act and Anti-Deficiency Act crimes.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:39 pm

But finding that fines are taxes makes the whole thing Constitutional, and never to be amended, unless it is done by unconstitutional waiver.

Feel free to amend it or repeal it by gathering an electoral majority sufficient to vote the changes into law.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:43 pm

A commenter on another blog, coined the shorthand ‘Smokey the Stasi’ he hasn’t come up with the spiked helmet image, but give him time,

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:44 pm

That should be treated as vandalism, SPQR.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:44 pm

Obama’s the kind of prick who has his employees remove the handles from water fountains on federal parkland trails.

Colonel Haiku (59727e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:44 pm

Tlaloc:

Feel free to amend it or repeal it by gathering an electoral majority sufficient to vote the changes into law.

With pleasure. In the meantime, we’ll delay and defund.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:45 pm

There are other legal challenges aside from the Constitutional issues.

…Adler and Cannon studied the actual text of the law — something Congress never did — and found that it explicitly provided a subsidy only to those who receive their insurance through state exchanges. Indeed, the subsidies and tax credits were intended to be the carrot that induced states to set up exchanges rather than force the feds to set up their own.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the language of the statute should be “interpreted” to extend the subsidies to those enrolled in state or federal exchanges, but that’s not what the law says. Section 1401 of the act, according to their article, “authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and makes them available only through state-run Exchanges.”

The section says that taxpayers may receive a tax credit only if “the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan … that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

Adler and Cannon argue that “by its express terms, this provision only applies to exchanges ‘established by a state’ and ‘established … under Section 1311.’ Section 1401 further emphasizes that tax credits are available only through Section 1311 exchanges.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/327337-suit-in-oklahoma-could-knock-out-obamacare#ixzz2hGNssjxU
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Obamacare defenders insist there’s language in the law that lets them offer subsidies and tax credits through the federal exchanges, but it’s not there. Just like there’s no language in the law that allowed OPM to issue a rule that Congress and only Congress can keep its large employer contribution. King Obama just decreed that laws mean what he wishes and only what he wishes.

As an aside they can find things in the law when they want to even if it’s not there. Congress wrote the CR funding DoD to provide death gratuities. In fact that was their intent. But the Obama administration decided to be literalists and since the law could be read to permit them to but didn’t expressly tell them to pay the families of those KIA a death gratuity they wouldn’t.

Barack “my military” Obama knows the troops aren’t one of his core constituencies.

So they’re just being p****s and screwing over the troops on purpose.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:46 pm

Interestingly though, EW Jackson is doing well, while Cuccinelli is floundering, in part becaus he has been backsliding re the McAuliffe onslaught, the latter could be a character out of the Blacklist,

Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2013#Polling_2

that doesn’t look like EW is doing fine to my eye. YMMV.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:46 pm

There must be a hole somewhere out in the desert outside Las Vegas for Harry Reid to recline in.

Colonel Haiku (59727e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:47 pm

Even a blind squirrel:

http://therightscoop.com/wow-wolf-blitzer-says-obama-should-take-gop-advice-and-delay-obamacare/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:48 pm

Guess what? There are a host of challenges to the law coming on freedom of religion grounds.

Let me know when they
A) reach the SCOTUS, AND
B) win a majority of justices

I won’t hold my breath.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:49 pm

So, the statute as written was ENTIRELY unconstitutional, but the Chief basically rewrote a few words here and there and then found the insurance part of the law could stand.

Yes, that is exactly right. And history will eventually come around. There will probably come a day when democrats act like they always knew this was wrong, even, as they do with their other Supreme Court successes that proved evil.

My concern is that it is fundamentally wrong for a government to control us in this way. Whether it’s a state like MA or the entire country, we should know this is wrong. And not only was Romney in favor of this kind of extremely lefty power, but so was most of the GOP field that had any staying power in the 2012 primary. I eventually was leaning towards Newt, but he had his own mandate idea.

Conservatism is not dead. It’s actually never been so alive with activists and commentators, thanks largely to great bloggers and social media. But our influence in this party’s actual policies is hard to see sometimes. Once in a while you get something like Cruz’s ‘filibuster’ and even then the hostility to actual unashamed conservative leadership from the RINOs in the party is striking. The last two presidential candidates came out in some way to criticize it. It was another reminder of the last two primaries, where there was plenty of sharp criticism of conservative candidates, and of course very weak criticism of the democrats. Some were fooled into picking ‘the fighter’, only to realize he’s not so much of a fighter when it comes to fighting for us.

Honestly it’s a lot healthier to accept the GOP is not going to fix this, so we can get on with the difficult business of finding a different political solution.

Let’s not be ridiculous partisans here. The evils that plague most of the democrat party plagues a great deal of the GOP as well. The powerful interests of Goldman Sachs or General Electric, forever trying to get loopholes or other advantages over other business (such as small businesses), will lobby the heck out of both parties, funding the kind of candidates conservatives and fans of limited government and liberty often do not favor. Obamacare is a great example of a policy that makes it a lot harder for the little guy to compete. It’s a relative advantage.

It’s a problem that requires a thoughtful and honest discussion so that solutions for conservatives can be considered. Unfortunately the GOP still has a vestige of blind lapdog partisanship. I guess that’s understandable in terms of hostility to democrats, but it’s totally misplaced. The problem isn’t the democrats. The problem is big government, something the GOP has a hand in.

Dustin (00497b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:50 pm

With pleasure. In the meantime, we’ll delay and defund.

If you like, but al indications are you will pay a steep electoral price for it, meaning you’ll be no position to repeal or have much of any input on other policy for that matter.

Notice the conversation is no longer about whether the right can take the senate but whether they will hold the house in 2014.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:52 pm

“Feel free to amend it or repeal it by gathering an electoral majority sufficient to vote the changes into law.”

Nope, we’ll just refuse to fund it, like Democrats have refused to fund things in the law that they disagree with.

Like 18 USC 925(c)

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:52 pm

A trip back in the way back machine;

http://therightscoop.com/obama-approval-rating-plummets-to-37-but-the-ap-buries-it-in-their-report/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:52 pm

Obama is… Bastard of Young.

Colonel Haiku (59727e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:53 pm

You my huckleberry, TaLaLa?

Colonel Haiku (59727e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:55 pm

narciso, it is astonishing that the Democrats in Virginia would run such a completely corrupt bagman as McAuliffe.

Old SNL bit:

Diane Sawyer: Mr. Vice-President, you still have a minute-twenty.

George Bush: What? That can’t be right. I must have spoken for at least two minutes.

Diane Sawyer: No, just forty seconds, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Really? Well, if I didn’t use the time then, I must have just used the time now, talking about it.

Diane Sawyer: No, no, Mr. Vice-President, it’s not being counted against you.

George Bush: Well, I just don’t want it to count against Governor Dukakis’ time.

Diane Sawyer: It won’t. It will come out of the post-debate commentary.

George Bush: Do you think that’s a good idea?

Diane Sawyer: You still have a minute-twenty, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Well, more has to be done, sure. But the programs we have in place are doing the job, so let’s keep on track and stay the course.

Diane Sawyer: You have fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Let me sum up. On track, stay the course. Thousand points of light.

Diane Sawyer: Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal?

Michael Dukakis: I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!

Point being it’s not a great idea to talk about how terrible your opponent is at the same time he’s winning handily. Your egos right now are taking enough beatings.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:55 pm

No, I mean, I say, I mean… Are you mah huckleberry, TaLaLa?

Colonel Haiku (59727e) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:56 pm

Nope, we’ll just refuse to fund it, like Democrats have refused to fund things in the law that they disagree with.

Huh, you know you’d think with the news about the exchanges you would have noticed by now that not funding it does nothing.

When do you plan to think these facts through?

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:57 pm

An interesting ObamaCare lawsuit:

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Larry Kawa, owner of Kawa Orthodontics in South Florida, challenging Obama’s decision to postpone the employer mandate until 2015.
***
“The president wants to avoid the consequences of the law, and there are ways to do that legally, and that’s through having Congress repeal it or modify it,” [Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton] said. “He’s chosen not to do that and act as a one-man Congress.”

“He has no more power to do that than you or I,” Kawa said. “In fact, he has an affirmative duty to enforce the law, and we are here to make sure that he does that.”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:58 pm

Tlaloc’s the failure of the exchanges does continue regardless of funding.

But your understanding of the fate of the legislation without funding is of a kind of your failure to understand all the rest of the issues you comment upon.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:59 pm

Feel free to amend it or repeal it by gathering an electoral majority sufficient to vote the changes into law.

I thought it was settled law, never to be amended or changed, except by executive fiat.

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:00 pm

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:17 pm

When is a “tax” not a “tax”?
When it is written into a bill in the Senate and sent to reconciliation without the House having initiated the “tax”.
Because of Teddy’s death, and the Dems loss of that seat, they couldn’t do their regular routine, and had to play word games with the House passing a bill that originated in the Senate, even if it had an “HR” # (“gut and amend” at its finest).

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:02 pm

Here we go,
offer to pass a law that postpones the employer mandate for 1n year along with the individual mandate…

BTW, I heard the original budget for the website was under 100 million, the cost (I guess so far??) was over 600 million.
A good start on saving costs by improving efficiency.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:03 pm

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 2:44 pm

The new winter uni for the Park Service will include very nice black-leather knee-length jackets.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:05 pm

But your understanding of the fate of the legislation without funding is of a kind of your failure to understand all the rest of the issues you comment upon.

SPQR, as has been explained innumerable times obamacare has built in funding for the vast majority of what it does. Besides which the defund theater is about to collapse anyway. So in return for a 10 point drop in GOP favorability numbers (lastest gallup) the right has slightly inconvenienced implementation.

Not stopped implementation.

Not delayed implementation.

Slightly inconvenienced.

Still think it was worth it?

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:06 pm

I thought it was settled law, never to be amended or changed, except by executive fiat.

It’s really sad when you start believing your own strawman arguments.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:07 pm

President Mean Girl is deliberately withholding the death gratuity when he could pay it. The House Armed Services Committee authorized “all pay and allowances” when it funded the military last week. Before they wrote the final bill they asked Hagel what would be funded under the term “pay and allowances.” Here’s the “Pay and Allowance Summary” DoD sent back.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=74656f75-86b6-4220-aea0-6578f1fe87ed

Note that death gratuity is the second item in the “D”s on the Obama administration. They simply pretended Congress didn’t authorize these payments.

In my opinion the House GOP is being entirely too polite toward Obama.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/2013/10/mckeon-statement-on-death-gratuity

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:07 pm

Yes, the fact that you a communication’s network, that cost just past half a million dollars and doesn’t work, that we have spent billions debasing our currency, making real economic growth impossible, hampering resource development

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:09 pm

If the press is permitted to publish that it’s 37% — what’s the real polling show? 16%? Less?

htom (412a17) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:10 pm

Speaking of pyrrhic defeats (not even pyrrhic victories) maybe the house could start impeachment procedures…

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:11 pm

If that would enable them to convene as a Grand Jury, with all of the investigative powers of that body – why not start now, so that they’ll have a final bill of particulars ready when the 114th Congress begins sitting.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:14 pm

By the way, here’s the bill Congress passed that already authorized Prom Queen to pay the death gratuity.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3210/text

The GOP needs to get in front of every mike and let the world know they asked the Obama administration what would be covered under pay and allowances. They provided a list that included the death gratuity. So Congress funded pay and allowances.

And Barack Obama is refusing to pay them out because that makes a big media splash.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:19 pm

#189 The WH will argue power to implement tax which ergo means they want to tax the people but not the corporations. Wonder if anyone will pick that up.

Incredible argument when you think of the past 50 years demonizing Republicans as Corporate Welfare shills and here is Obama actually defending the practice at SCOTUS (or some other Court).

Rodney King's Spirit (5afc40) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:23 pm

No, Steve, he isn’t paying it because he’s a petulant little $hit, and doesn’t give a Tinker’s Damn about the men and women of the services, or their families.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:23 pm

It looks to me as though George W. Bush was the only President not to have a budget shutdown during his terms as President.

Probably President Stompyfoot needs to consult with George W. to learn how its done.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:24 pm

htom,

I assume that 37% is all Americans. Imagine how low it might go if it were limited to likely or registered voters.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:25 pm

Rodney, it just proves that the Progressive Party is the Party of Wall Street;
while the TEA Party is the Party of Main Street.
(the Establishment GOP is the Party of K-Street)

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:25 pm

SPQR, GW did it by SPENDING!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:26 pm

Nominating Yellen as Fed chair, one might as well set fire to the Mint, they’ve never done something so stupid for so long, even with Weimar Germany,

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:27 pm

208—-more—-
and by putting away the VETO pen.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:27 pm

Probably President Stompyfoot needs to consult with George W. to learn how its done.

Well to be fair it was a lot easier back when republicans had no problem with deficits and no interest in running a balanced budget…

Ah, 2002.

Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:27 pm

Can’t wait for 30-yr fixed rates to fall into the low-3’s.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:28 pm

182. Actually the first Democrat invented defunding as the means to burying the Second National Bank.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:28 pm

SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE EDITORIAL: “President Obama’s shameful death-benefit theater.”

Colonel Haiku (fcc20b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:28 pm

San Diego has a long history as a “Navy Town”, and that community has regained its voice with the new publisher/owner of the Union-Tribune.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:30 pm

Tlaloc is finding another comedy bit to quote, because he believes there is some deep meaning in Steve Martin and SNL routines from 25 years ago.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:30 pm

Tlaloc, ah 2002 when the deficit was one third of the annual deficits that President Stompyfoot has run.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:31 pm

It is shameful that the GOP creates a shutdown over the budget based on a dispute about … the budget.

When instead they could act mature like Democrats and have a shutdown to protest the FCC removing a rule and thereby allowing too much free speech.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:32 pm

200. Actually, we’re holding out ’til the Dhimmis return to form and hoist Dog by his own petard.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:33 pm

He seems to relying on the Carlh hJonson piece, that has Obama at 43%

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:34 pm

212. That ship has sailed.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:35 pm

Depends on the scale of QE-4!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:37 pm

195. “as has been explained innumerable times obamacare has built in funding”

And Howard J. Mickens knows whereof he speaks.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:39 pm

San Diego has a long history as a “Navy Town”, and that community has regained its voice with the new publisher/owner of the Union-Tribune.

At one point, the Manchester Family was rumored to be interested in the LA Times, which had the usual liberal suspects all with their panties in a bunch over the idea that the editorial page might not skew to the far left any longer.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:39 pm

Ah, 2002

I will happily go back to that level of irresponsible reckless spending again. How about we to back to 2002 spending levels? Or just the deficit levels of 2002?

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:39 pm

So the crack data mining of voters wasn’t the only thing going on;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/confirmed-white-house-and-irs-exchanged-confidential-taxpayer-information/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:40 pm

JVW, I understand there was an epidemic of “vapors” in LaJolla when Doug’s purchase of the paper was announced.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:41 pm

222. Good point, if Yellen buys every mortgage between Kauai and Barcelona it might just happen.

Still, the law of unintended consequences has a play.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:43 pm

narciso, we’ve got probable cause for multiple indictments of IRS personnel.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:44 pm

With Yellen’s appointment, we might as well start calling BO “Barack ‘William Jennings Bryan’ Obama”

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:45 pm

211. Well to be fair it was a lot easier back when republicans had no problem with deficits and no interest in running a balanced budget…

Ah, 2002.

Comment by Tlaloc (504b91) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:27 pm

So, Flailoc, you think maxing out the credit card at Christmas like Bush did is exactly the same thing as Obama taking out a second mortgage on the White House so he can vacation in Monte Carlo?

I love these “GOP did it, too” attempts at argument.

The GOP once put a hole in the drywall with the doorknob.

So now the GOP can’t complain when Obama drives a car through the wall.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:47 pm

226- Anything and everything sent to the WH was probably immediately forwarded to “the cave” in Chicago.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:47 pm

And Howard J. Mickens knows whereof he speaks.

No appeal to authority needed. Did the exchanges open on schedule? Yes. Okay then we know that obviously obamacare has independent financing at least in part…

Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:50 pm

It’s always sumthin’:

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/obamacare-lawsuit-oklahoma-pruitt/2013/10/09/id/530113?promo_code=EACE-1&utm_source=GatewayPundit&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:52 pm

I will happily go back to that level of irresponsible reckless spending again. How about we to back to 2002 spending levels? Or just the deficit levels of 2002?

Sure, just as soon as you figure out a way to erase the damage to the economy caused by republican ideas regarding regulation of the economy…You now the ideas that led to the Great Recession.

Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:52 pm

Punitive Pusillanimous Prick with a Profound Propensity to Propagate Poverty and other Progressive Maladies… that’s our P-P-President.

Colonel Haiku (180a66) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:52 pm

Rico’s gal Crawford:

http://minx.cc/?post=344038

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:53 pm

No appeal to authority needed. Did the exchanges open on schedule? Yes.

Did the Titanic reach its max speed? Yes.

Did the German army get to winter in Russia? Yes.

Did “Battlefield Earth” open in a bunch of movie theaters? Yes.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:54 pm

Brave Sir Failalot…

Colonel Haiku (180a66) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:54 pm

I love these “GOP did it, too” attempts at argument.

I’m making no such argument. The Bush deficits served no purpose as once the minor blip in 2000 was dealt with there was n contraction of the economy. It was reckless, useless, and stupid. The Obama deficits have been counter cyclical exactly as government spending should be.

There’s no equating the two, the GOP was wrong, Obama was not, except in so much as his stimulus was far too small (though to be fair it was based on the view of the recession at the time).

Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:55 pm

Falalala is again provng JD’s 1st Rule of Trolls

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:55 pm

Not unicorn and fairy dust economic theories, again.

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:56 pm

Tlaloc, there were no such “republican ideas” regarding regulation of the economy.

Repeal of the last bits of Glass-Steagal act was Clinton’s Treasury secretary policy proposal. The same Robert Rubin who Tim Geitner was a protege of.

Sheesh, you really are utterly clueless about all topics you opine upon.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:56 pm

Wow, the exchanges opened on schedule.
What a great accomplishment, if all you want to do is open the door.
The fact that navigating the website has been close to impossible, and that out of millions of hit, only a few thousand purchases have been made, is not of any consequence.
Oh, and the fact that to even browse the site, you have to open an “account” giving someone all of your personal data, without any ability to erase that account.
What a great deal….more data for The Cave to mine.
The Stasi should have had such a repository of personal data….oh, wait, they did, paper files accumulated from snitches and appartchiks, that were eventually opened until they revealed how extensive was the internal espionage system that the regime was operating, and how many neighbors were spying on neighbors and family, when they were promptly closed in the interest of domestic tranquility.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:57 pm

Did the Titanic reach its max speed? Yes.

Did the German army get to winter in Russia? Yes.

Did “Battlefield Earth” open in a bunch of movie theaters? Yes.

Whether the sites worked wel is beside the point, obviously they were open and hence your argument about defunding is clearly wrong. Unless you want to claim the sites had issues *because* of defunding.

Do you? Cause I’m sure Obama would be all to happy to blame the roll out glitches on the GOP…

Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:57 pm

Obama’s stimulus wasn’t too small. If it was any bigger, it would have killed more jobs than the half million jobs it already killed.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:58 pm

Failalot never heard of Bahney Fwank, Chris Dodd, CRA, etc.

Hahahahaha…HA!

Colonel Haiku (cd8c27) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:58 pm

Tlaloc, there were no such “republican ideas” regarding regulation of the economy.

Right, the dejure deregulation cause by republicans refusing to enforce the law had no effect whatsoever. Really! Fr god’s sake don’t for a second question your beliefs in the face of mountains of contrary evidence!

Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:00 pm

“…the ideas that led to the Great Recession…”

Yes, the Community Redevelopment Act, and the denial of oversight of Fannie and Freddie by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (with the elevation of Franklin Raines to sainthood by Maxine “No Justice – No Peace” Waters.
Are you talking about those ideas?
Moron!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:00 pm

But… but… but Fox News, Halliburton!… eh, Failalot…

Colonel Haiku (cd8c27) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:01 pm

We won’t, since you have completely #FAILED to bring to the table any contrary evidence.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:01 pm

Tlaloc, there were no such “dejure deregulation” either. You just make up the most hilarious stuff.

As for not question your beliefs in the face of contrary evidence – you are sure lucky that irony is not poisonous.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:01 pm

We need to bring back the guillotine for the ruling class in DC. I am not kidding either.

Rodney King's Spirit (5afc40) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:02 pm

Hahahaha – do you ever get tired of your asspulls? How may times do your economic ideas have to fail before you reevaluate? Or maybe you just need to give it longer harder and deeper to the taxpayers?

JD (5c1832) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:03 pm

If only we had made Obama’s stimulus TWO trillion dollars, we could have destroyed a whole MILLION jobs.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:04 pm

Another case of a troll repeating lies often enough that they might gain traction. What works in Failalot Land fails epically with people who know better

Colonel Haiku (42710d) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:05 pm

Whether the sites worked wel is beside the point, obviously they were open and hence your argument about defunding is clearly wrong. Unless you want to claim the sites had issues *because* of defunding.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? The failure of the sites is proof-positive that the federal government in general and the Obama Administration in particular are grossly incapable of managing the wretched bill that they foisted upon all of us. If they can’t get something as basic as the exchanges right, imagine how fouled up they are going to be when it comes to reimbursing doctors and hospitals or approving treatments for patients.

This is like hiring an architect and contractor to build a house for you. They dig out the basement and pour the foundation, and they do an utterly crappy job of it. They then claim that they didn’t do that bad of a job and that in any case it really isn’t their fault, it’s the fault of a contractor who didn’t even bid on the project. Would you then be too keen on keeping the same crew around to do the framing, install electricity and plumbing, and finish the rest of the house? Or might you fire the crew and try again with a brand-new group?

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:06 pm

245 “I’m sure Obama would be all to happy to blame the roll out glitches on the GOP.”

ROTFLMAO. Stop it you heartless cad. I’m soiling myself!

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:06 pm

Gee, I wonder why Obama administration prosecutes less bank fraud than George W. Bush administration did …

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:06 pm

#240 Really? Macro-Econ 101? Theory would suggest it’d be cheaper and faster to simply throw benjamins out the window of a helicopter. That way inefficient Govt infrastructure would not be created (FOREVER) to do the stimulative task over the short course. By doing helicopter financing, prices for resources in the private market would be lower over the long run and allow productive uses of those assets over the long run. But anyway …..

Rodney King's Spirit (5afc40) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:09 pm

given the idiocy of the comments, and the brain dead ability to ignore reality, i’m beginning to wonder if Tralala isn’t our SCOAMF himself, casting his magik beans in front of his ungrateful peasants…

after all, he’s got lots of time, being in between vacations and all. 😎

redc1c4 (abd49e) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:11 pm

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/09/wh-warned-for-months-of-obamacare-exchange-debacle/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:14 pm

Rushbo this AM was comparing the point W. hit 37% in 2006 with today’s Unbearable Lightness of Zero.

The word out of the Lamestream was that the poor sap was a maroon, utterly out of his depth as Leader of the Free world.

Urkel’s performance on his way is vastly worse.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:17 pm

Its the repetition of the long discredited “Republican deregulation” horse manure from Tlaloc that is so hilarious.

There seems to be no topic on Earth that Tlaloc can’t demonstrate incompetence about.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:17 pm

Yes, he’s always contacting Ceti Alpha 6, it’s instructive to note, that Gallup had the GOP at 25% in April of 2010, and it was 45, by November of that year.

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:22 pm

I will happily go back to that level of irresponsible reckless spending again. How about we to back to 2002 spending levels? Or just the deficit levels of 2002?

Sure, just as soon as you figure out a way to erase the damage to the economy caused by republican ideas regarding regulation of the economy…You now the ideas that led to the Great Recession.

Comment by Tlaloc (b1a1d2) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:52 pm

It looks like he admitted his original point was spurious so then brings up a different one.

So what was the actual deregulation that caused the mess according to you?

Gerald A (130406) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:27 pm

We can take his appearances as a Socratic exercise, as when Kingsfield humiliated his students, however he’s already at Otto level, and approaching Billy Madison for obtuseness.

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:31 pm

Via Instapundit:

https://twitter.com/OrwellForce/status/387413255905243136

The @gop should run ads that are just Obama’s debt ceiling comments from 06, not say they’re from 06, and confuse the hell out of everyone.

He goes on to say:

@sqwerin @GOP It would be so awesome if Obama had to hold a press conference to explain that that’s not his current position.

I like the idea. But not a press conference. But rather Press conferences.

It’d be great if Tiger Beat had to explain why he’s no longer for fiscal sanity.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:39 pm

The Current Crisis The Taranto Principle – Left-wing media bias ends up hurting the left-wing pols it’s supposed to be helping. American Spectator 9.25.08

What is the Taranto Principle? It is a principle laid down by the Wall Street Journal’s perceptive editorialist, James Taranto. Taranto, in his column “Best of the Web Today,” surveys the media and reports daily on their output with special emphasis on their contradictions, hypocrisies and — most deliciously — imbecilities…..According to the Taranto Principle, the media’s failure to hold left-wingers accountable for bad behavior merely encourages the left’s bad behavior to the point that its candidates are repellent to ordinary Americans…..

….Now the Taranto Principle can be seen in the reporting on Governor Sarah Palin…According to this variation of the Taranto Principle, the media circulate infamies that encourage leftists to confect greater infamies, thus causing the defamed candidate to cop the sympathy vote

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:39 pm

Gerald A., the left always wants to cite the repeal of Glass-Steagal. But shout squirrel when its pointed out that it was Clinton admin policy. And just look baffled when its pointed out that Obama financial advisors were all Robert Rubin proteges.

The reality is that the housing bubble popped catastrophically and is tied to largely bipartisan policies related to the mortgage backed securities market. Although the worse corruption of the MBS market took place under Democrat control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:00 pm

The reality is that the housing bubble popped catastrophically and is tied to largely bipartisan policies related to the mortgage backed securities market.

SPQR, I always like to tell my progressive friends that the housing bubble is what happens when the two parties work together towards a common goal. They don’t like to hear that.

JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:05 pm

JVW, I like to ask them who appointed Franklin Raines who paid a rather hefty fine personally to settle charges and saw Fannie Mae pay an immense fine related to the same conduct.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:11 pm

98. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:06 am

I’m not sure you understand that the House has the Constitutional authority to decide how to appropriate monies. So even if Nancy Pelosi’s Congress passed a law in 2009 that says that Americans get free ice cream courtesy of the federal government every Tuesday afternnon during the summer, the current Congress can refuse to appropriate money for that law which was passed by a PAST Congress.

The first bill would be an authorization, the second an appropriation. An authorization is not enough to make something actually happen.

But we don’t usually have Congress refusw to apprpriate money for somethig established, especially if it involves more than just a questionn of spending money.

And omitting something is the antithesis of a continuing resolution.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:28 pm

270. There was a housing bubble because of one thing only: Overhigh appraised values.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:30 pm

Brave Sir Failalot
gallantly he chickened out
bravely ran away

Colonel Haiku (94ab1c) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:32 pm

274… Sammy… back away from the crack pipe and the shovel.

Colonel Haiku (94ab1c) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:34 pm

And the bubble was driven by partial greed, however, the demand was driven by government policy, the CRA revisions, the HUD rules, the DOJ’s suggestions on ‘red lining;

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:34 pm

Sammy, I’ve already given examples of things forbidden by Congress through appropriations. And the bubble collapse was more than high appraised values.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:37 pm

Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 4:39 pm

It would be interesting to see some kind of cut and paste interview format with Obama’s quotes of 2006 being used in today’s context.

Then again, if it was really good and went viral, everyone involved would need to have pretty good cover, leaving no trail of the IRS

“YouTube Free America” they could call it

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:40 pm

Sammy – take another hit and reload

mg (31009b) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:40 pm

Anybody see or hear anything about activity at the WWII Memorial today?

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:43 pm

I’m all verklempt about it;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/10/09/katie-couric-failing

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:45 pm

Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:19 pm

The GOP needs to get in front of every mike and let the world know they asked the Obama administration what would be covered under pay and allowances. They provided a list that included the death gratuity. So Congress funded pay and allowances.

Can you give me some kind of a link to that fact?

Because I didn’t read that – but I am fully prepared to believe that. The New York Times quoted part of a letetr Congressman Duncan Hunter wrote but did not provide any of his reasoning.

More conservative media didn’t have this fact either. Of course this is all new to the reporters, and their being confused and misled.

And Barack Obama is refusing to pay them out because that makes a big media splash.

So for this law, (but not the PPACA) Bracak Obama decided to follow Justice Scalia’s principles of statutory interpretation. (textualism)

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:57 pm

It would be interesting to see some kind of cut and paste interview format with Obama’s quotes of 2006 being used in today’s context.

Split screen, left and right views of O talking, 2006-2008 on one side, today on the other.
Followed by a clip from the campaign:
I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message!

askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:58 pm

276 @Haiku. No, it’s absolutely true. That’s the only thing that went wrong. Too high appraisals is what made everything possible, and without it, nothing would have been possible, and nothing else truly mattered.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:59 pm

Sammy, that’s grossly oversimplistic to the extent of simply not being true.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:01 pm

No, Sammy, absolutely not true, as has been explained in detail by other folks here.

Colonel Haiku (94ab1c) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:01 pm

Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:58 pm

Sounds like a great start.
If one could get some clips of him looking sideways to stick in, to make it look like he is scowling at himself.

Of course, neither you nor I nor anybody we personally know have the faintest clue as to how to pull it off.
Just in case it comes out.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:02 pm

I don’t think so, Sammy. I know next to nothing about it, but my understanding is that the problem came when people couldn’t pay the bill, especially after an artificially low initial rate went up.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:05 pm

278. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:37 pm

Sammy, I’ve already given examples of things forbidden by Congress through appropriations.

I know somethin about gun applications. They shouldn’t use that mechanism, but at least anyway that was voted on in the normal process of nbill making And it’s nothing majorr like this. Furthermore, defunding Obamacare doesn’t releive people of losing their insurance.

And the bubble collapse was more than high appraised values.

The collapse was caused by rising interest rates in the mid oughts. That caused adjustable rate mortgages to reset higher which caused more people to miss payments.

In the short run, it slowed down the sale of houses. In the medium run, the number of foreclosures finally forced the sale of houses at a loss. This then made it impossible for many people to refinance even when interest rates dropped. There was fraud too, but this was not the principle cause.

It was high appraised values that created housing bubble.

By the way, there still is a bubble, dacades old.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:05 pm

Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:05 pm

I know next to nothing about it, but my understanding is that the problem came when people couldn’t pay the bill, especially after an artificially low initial rate went up.

That’s what collapsed the bubble, when there were too many foreclosed homes available for sale, but high appraisals based on recent prices is what created it.

The appraisals did not recognize there was a bubble.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:08 pm

#285

They were only too high in retrospect which is meaningless. I don’t know that it can be demonstrated that they were too high based on the market at the time.

The main problem was “liar loans” etc. You had people taking out mortgages who couldn’t possibly afford to make the payments. It was impossible for that not to collapse.

Gerald A (130406) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:10 pm

Read Gretchen Morgenstern’s ‘Reckless Endangerment’ and it will tell the whole story, including that of a number of heroes like Al Falcon that tried to stop it,

narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:11 pm

Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:58 pm

Split screen, left and right views of O talking, 2006-2008 on one side, today on the other.

Including maybe this quote from yesterday, which explains it all?

The truth of the matter is, if you look at the history, people posture about the debt ceiling frequently

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:12 pm

Wow, how can you get so much wrong, Sammy?

I know somethin about gun applications. They shouldn’t use that mechanism, but at least anyway that was voted on in the normal process of nbill making And it’s nothing majorr like this. Furthermore, defunding Obamacare doesn’t releive people of losing their insurance.

No, provisions of law that still exist were simply defended in the budgetary process. When Congress writes a budget, it stipulates that no funds can be used for certain purposes.

And funding Obamacare doesn’t relieve people of losing insurance. Because Obamacare itself is doing that. 20,000 people working for Home Depot can tell you that.

And your description of the housing market is a masterpiece of confusion and misunderstanding.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:17 pm

285. 292. Comment by Gerald A (130406) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:10 pm

They were only too high in retrospect which is meaningless. I don’t know that it can be demonstrated that they were too high based on the market at the time.

That was what was wrong!! They were based on the market at the time, not on what the market might be in three or five years, when people might have trouble making their payments.

They did not recognize the reality of being in a bubble which might collapse.

It was dictum really, that housing prices could never go down, because nobody would ever sell at a loss, because then they could not pay off thhe mortgage.

Well, as Herbert Stein once said: “Things that can’t go on forever, don’t” and when banks had too many foreclosed homes, they did sell them at a loss.

The main problem was “liar loans” etc.

Irrelevant, because many of the facts lied about were irrelevant. The only things that mattered were a person’s credit rating (indicative of a desire to pay debts) and the ratio of the house’s value to the mortgage.

And a person’s credit rating only mattered for the first year of the loan.

Once a loan was paid the first year (indicating that a person knew what he was capable of paying, regardless of what a formula would tell you he was capable of paying) the only thing that mattered was the ratio of the house’s value to the mortgage.

Because if the ratio was considerably less than 100%, the person who had the mortgage could simply sell the house! And would.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:33 pm

You had people taking out mortgages who couldn’t possibly afford to make the payments.

As things went on, you indeed had houses sold to people who couldn’t even pay for the first year, but this was not the core of the problem.

Oh, by the way, even when it came to adjustable rate mortgages, the credit rating process only looked at the current mortgage payment!!

For years this was not a problem, because housing prices kept climbing, and because it was arbitraily decided that people shouldn’t pay more than 28% or whatever of their income on a mortgage, but if their income is high enough, people can readily pay 60% or 70%.

This formula by the way, was based on adjudted gross income on a 1040, and ignored completely the question of state income taxes – whether there was or there wasn’t one and how much it was – the same percentage was used everywhere – that’s how ridiculous it was and is.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:34 pm

And it’s nothing majorr like this. Furthermore, defunding Obamacare doesn’t releive people of losing their insurance.

You do realize, Sammy, your opinion on legislation that you consider major as opposed to minor has no bearing on the House’s power to appropriate funds for it?

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:38 pm

Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:17 pm

When Congress writes a budget, it stipulates that no funds can be used for certain purposes.

That also happens, and really, that amounts to passing a new law. Sometimes the fights, as with the Hyde amendment, are fierce.

And funding Obamacare doesn’t relieve people of losing insurance. Because Obamacare itself is doing that.

I’m saying defunding Obamacare won’t relieve people of losing insurance. You have to change the law in amore proactive way.

20,000 people working for Home Depot can tell you that.

And abolishing the individual mandate gets them back their insurance? It only maybe avoids penalizing them double.

And your description of the housing market is a masterpiece of confusion and misunderstanding.

No, no, it’s very clear. It’s everybody else that’s confused.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:38 pm

Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:38 pm

You do realize, Sammy, your opinion on legislation that you consider major as opposed to minor has no bearing on the House’s power to appropriate funds for it?

Did I say anything like that?

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:39 pm

That was what was wrong!! They were based on the market at the time, not on what the market might be in three or five years, when people might have trouble making their payments.

They did not recognize the reality of being in a bubble which might collapse.

It was dictum really, that housing prices could never go down, because nobody would ever sell at a loss, because then they could not pay off thhe mortgage.

Sammy, what do you imagine the duties and responsibilities of an appraiser of real estate consist of? Hint: they don’t include using a crystal ball to guess what the market mike look like in three to five years.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:44 pm

That also happens, and really, that amounts to passing a new law.

For one year, which is only how long any budget lasts. The old law is still on the books; it hasn’t been repealed. If the law isn’t defunded the next year, then appropriated funds can be used to implement the provisions of the law.

So no it isn’t like passing a new law.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:47 pm

To amount to passing a new law, you’d have to repeal or replace the old law.

Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:48 pm

Tlaloc, there were no such “dejure deregulation” either. You just make up the most hilarious stuff.

I wonder how old he is? When I envision him as a pimple-faced teenager, I tend to snicker but can’t get too worked up. However, if he’s actually much older than that, and certainly is as old as 52-year-old Obama, then his fatuous, immature liberal biases take on a very pathetic tone.

Drudge headline is that IRS & White House exchanged private info about taxpayers…

I recall speaking with an accountant over a year ago who told me all the horror stories he’s had in his many decades of dealing with the IRS. I wasn’t surprised, but found myself — mea culpa — wondering if some of what he was relating to perhaps had been due to his own oversights, errors or transgressions. Now in 2013, I admit that even I, who should have known better, didn’t realize just how corrupt and disgusting US government agencies can truly be and become.

D’oh! to me for thinking not all that long ago that this nation was somehow immune to the idiocy and dishonesty of backwards, banana-republic societies.

If one good thing can come out of America becoming an Obamaination, is if growing percentages of the populace feel far more cynical and skeptical about — and disdainful of — the public sector, particularly at the federal level.

Mark (58ea35) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:00 pm

*** face palm ***

SPQR (cda69c) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:04 pm

301.Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:44 pm

Sammy, what do you imagine the duties and responsibilities of an appraiser of real estate consist of? Hint: they don’t include using a crystal ball to guess what the market mike look like in three to five years.

The appraiser is using a crystal ball anyway, because he is supposed to guess what a house should sell for, if there was a different buyer and seller. (if not, why not go by the agreed on selling price?)

You can asdjust – in some way – for the possibility of abubble. The appraiser could look at how much higher prices were than 5 years ago, and assume that, in the long run, prices will not rise above a certain rate for houses in the same location. So, regardless of what people are selling it for, not guarantee a value above a certain percentage of average selling rice then.

That’s not a problem.

But More important, the whole appraisal process is based on a fiction: that the value of a house is constant, affected only by factors pertaining to the house itself or its location, but not to the year in which the transaction took place.

And that’s very, very, wrong.

It’s sort of ruled out that something can happen to the entire market – for years.

So of course it went wrong.

Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:07 pm

Sammy, you do realize that an appraiser can say a house is worth “X” but that is only a guideline.
If there are two or more buyers interested in that one house, a bidding process commences that can quickly leave the appraisal in the dust. That happens frequently in a “hot” real-estate market – and with the ultra-low interest rates that were available resulting in “easy” money, the market got very “hot” indeed.
Then, you had people who had perhaps overpaid, for a house which, when the rates started going back up, or the sales rate started to decline leaving more properties on the market, the market value of an individual property stopped rising, or began declining. Feed all of that in to a market where adjustable-rate mortgages were being reset, and people were needing to refinance or flip a house to unload a now uncomfortable mortgage, and you have a bubble bursting.
It had nothing to do with appraisers.

askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:23 pm

307. I’d guess Sammy rents. Not that it matters.

Speaking of which:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/08/obamacares-troubles-are-only-beginning

Traffic was bound to decline, eventually. Our birth rates are barely keeping pace with Death.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:44 am

307. One small but useful addition. Appraisals are paid for by the loan originator following an accepted offer to buy.

If an appraiser doesn’t believe the house is worth the offer he generally will pass up the $500 bucks or so rather than step in it with his loan officer, et al.

Even if you could purchase a clue you would not know what to do with same.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:51 am

Throwing a fit and shutting down the entire federal government over every law that has been negotiated, passed, and declared constitutional that you don’t necessarily care for is a slippery slope, kids.

hubnub (29b511) — 10/10/2013 @ 5:09 am

Buh bye, Tye.

JD (5c1832) — 10/10/2013 @ 5:21 am

You never did tell us what other laws were inviolate.

JD (5c1832) — 10/10/2013 @ 5:22 am

Hubnub, the whole law wasnt declared constitutional. Your exaggeration was already debunked.

SPQR (cda69c) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:39 am

And of course the fact it was Democrats that started the slippery slope is beyond hubnub entirely. Democrats think history began 5 years ago.

SPQR (cda69c) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:42 am

I’m not sure you understand that the House has the Constitutional authority to decide how to appropriate monies. So even if Nancy Pelosi’s Congress passed a law in 2009 that says that Americans get free ice cream courtesy of the federal government every Tuesday afternnon during the summer, the current Congress can refuse to appropriate money for that law which was passed by a PAST Congress.

Not just a past Congress. The same congress can pass such a law and then fail to appropriate funds for it, which means implementation becomes impossible.

Milhouse (20dddd) — 10/10/2013 @ 11:23 am

307. Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:23 pm

Sammy, you do realize that an appraiser can say a house is worth “X” but that is only a guideline.

If there are two or more buyers interested in that one house, a bidding process commences that can quickly leave the appraisal in the dust. That happens frequently in a “hot” real-estate market –and with the ultra-low interest rates that were available resulting in “easy” money, the market got very “hot” indeed.

The problem occurs when an appraiser says that a house is worth what a lot of people are willing
to pay for it. There’s no problem if the apprased value is too low.

A bank will not make a loan for above the appraised value, so it can’t lose.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 11:57 am

The bubble went on for so long that people started to believe that there wasn’t a bubble.

Case in point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/business/economy/for-yellen-a-focus-on-reducing-unemployment.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1381431154-rrTUK+B45WtxgW+a5QoZAw&pagewanted=all

Ms. Yellen demonstrated considerable economic insight over the next several years. She was the first Fed official, in 2005, to describe the rise in housing prices as a bubble that might damage the economy. She was also the first, in 2008, to say that the economy had fallen into recession. And in early 2009, she warned of an “extended period of stagnation,” dismissing concerns about imminent inflation.

Her warnings before the crisis, however, were tentative and inconsistent. “I never said for sure there was a bubble, but that it was a possibility,” Ms. Yellen said in September 2006. “I guess I was inclined to think maybe there was. But I have seen what has happened in the last year or so, and now I’m more dubious.”

So in 2005 she said there was a housing bubble, and then, in 2006 when prices stayed up, and maybe stopped rising a bit, she began to doubt there was bubble in the first place.

BUT THERE WAS.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 11:58 am

Then, you had people who had perhaps overpaid, for a house which, when the rates started going back up, or the sales rate started to decline leaving more properties on the market, the market value of an individual property stopped rising, or began declining.

The problem was NOT people taking out mortgages for more than the appraised value, because they couldn’t. The problem was that the appraised value, and the sales value, was too high. Not just for a few houses, for ALL houses.

Feed all of that in to a market where adjustable-rate mortgages were being reset, and people were needing to refinance or flip a house to unload a now uncomfortable mortgage, and you have a bubble bursting.

Of course.

It had nothing to do with appraisers.

It had everything to do with appraisals.

Appraisers made people feel comfortable paying the bubble prices. Appraisers made banks feel comfortable loaning the money to buy the houses at current prices.

Of course more and more creative financing took place over time, as it was a bit of a Ponzi scheme.

And people who were right, like Janet Yellen, began to think maybe theyr were wrong.

People have a very hard time understanding a bubble that lasts for many years.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 12:05 pm

309. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:51 am

Appraisals are paid for by the loan originator following an accepted offer to buy.

If an appraiser doesn’t believe the house is worth the offer he generally will pass up the $500 bucks or so rather than step in it with his loan officer, et al.

You are saying that appraisers aren’t independent. Yes, that is the problem. Just like with credit rating agencies that rate bonds. Paid for by the bond issuer. Or certified public accountants who certify financial statements. Paid for by the company. They cease, after time, to be a check.

The problem actually was the way appraisers were trained. They did not take account of the possibility prices had risen too much in the preceding half a dozen years. It was dictum prices could never drop (absent a Love Canal or something like that)

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 12:15 pm

The job approva rate of Congress as a whole is 11%, down 8% from (a month ago?)

Gail Collins had joked in a column that it could go into negaive numbers (that people were trying to, something)

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:12 pm

Take for instance the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the only supreme court challenge to the PPACA so far. The Supreme court held by 5-4 that the ACA was a constitutional use of congressional power.

Um, no, it actually held 7-2 that the ACA was not a constitutional use of congressional power.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:14 pm

Somehow giving states the choice whether or not to participate in one small aspect of the PPACA hardly seems to be the same as finding the entire act to be unconstitutional.

The court found the act, as passed by Congress, to be an unconstitutional use of congressional power. That’s all. Your claim to the contrary is thus refuted.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:23 pm

But finding that fines are taxes makes the whole thing Constitutional, and never to be amended, unless it is done by unconstitutional waiver.

The court did not find that fines are taxes. It found that this particular impost, despite being called a fine, is in fact a tax. And it did so by relying on a precedent from the 1930s in which the court found a so-called “tax” to in fact be an unconstitutional fine, and struck it down. The principle the court laid down is that it doesn’t matter what Congress calls a thing, what matters is what it is. And that Congress has no power to compel people to buy things they don’t want to, so it’s a good thing this law doesn’t do that.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:28 pm

What they Roberts did was find that a small tax on those without insurance to fund medical services was constitutional, even though the statute had never called it a tax.

The point was that it doesn’t matter what a statute calls something. What matters is what it really is.

Now, if the fine tax becomes large, it would seem that it too would be unconstitutional and there are many as-applied suits to be heard.

Exactly. The precedent on which Roberts relied was of precisely such a case, where Congress imposed what it called a tax, and the Court found it to be a fine, and struck it down.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:36 pm

Kevin M., to correct you, with respect, the statute did not merely not call the penalty a “tax”, it actually explicitly stated that it was not a tax. And Democrats explicitly and repeatedly justified it as not being a tax.

And in the case from the ’30s the statue explicitly stated that it was a tax and not a fine, and its supporters justified it as being a tax rather than a fine, but the court found that it was a fine anyway, in part because it was punitively high.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:38 pm

Also, Roberts ruled the penalty functioned as a tax because it wasn’t so large that individuals didn’t have a meaningful choice.

And because it’s perfectly lawful to choose to pay the tax rather than buy insurance, and the government actually expected many people to make that choice, and budgeted for millions of dollars in revenue from such people.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:43 pm

Ah, Milhouse, are you enjoying the moron troll who is going around saying how he’s repeatedly kicked my butt?

I spent the day in a OSHA Long Term Care seminar discussing legal issues related to our practice.

But in reality, I was anxious to return here to see what stupid thing the troll had said today.

Imagine my disappointment.

SPQR (768505) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:44 pm

I still think that this is all Hatch Act and Anti-Deficiency Act crimes.

It certainly is, and if the statute hasn’t run out by 2017, the next administration should prosecute all those involved.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:45 pm

It looks like Obama may veto the military death benefits legislationM/a> passed by the Senate. Jay Carney says it’s not necessary as long as the Fisher House is paying the benefits and Obama plans to fix it by executive order or some other means.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:55 pm

Sorry. Forgot to close the tag.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:55 pm

Jay Carney said “We don’t need legislation” to pay military death benefits. Let’s face it. Obama doesn’t think we need legislation for anything. Just let him be dictator.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:56 pm

Nonetheless, vetoing it would be very stupid.

Here’s the problem with having Joe Biden as VP. He’s actually got communicable Alzheimers.

SPQR (768505) — 10/10/2013 @ 2:37 pm

Sammy, in #283:

The GOP needs to get in front of every mike and let the world know they asked the Obama administration what would be covered under pay and allowances. They provided a list that included the death gratuity. So Congress funded pay and allowances.

Can you give me some kind of a link to that fact?

This was already linked above in #197. As was the actual list the DoD provided, on which the House relied.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 3:52 pm

Throwing a fit and shutting down the entire federal government [..] is a slippery slope, kids

So why have the Senate and President done so? It’s not the House that has shut down the government. It passed a CR, and individual appropriation bills.

Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 4:38 pm

333. …This was already linked above in #197. As was the actual list the DoD provided, on which the House relied.

Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 10/10/2013 @ 3:52 pm

Apparently the Congressional Research Service had concluded the death gratuity would be funded by the original Pay Our Military Act, as well.

The Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee of Military Personnel has asked for Hagel’s rationale for concluding that it wasn’t. The deadline was today but as far as I know Hagel hasn’t responded.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 4:53 pm

I’m going to add further comment about the death gratuity on the “essential employees” thread.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 4:56 pm

Even MSNBC figured this out;

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/10/on-it-nbc-news-to-look-into-alleged-obamacare-website-glitches/

narciso (3fec35) — 10/10/2013 @ 5:59 pm

302. 303. Comment by Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:47 pm and 6:48 pm

So no it isn’t like passing a new law.

To amount to passing a new law, you’d have to repeal or replace the old law.

I forgot the details, as to how it’s perpetual, but the Hyde Amendment doesn’t need to be repassed each year.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:13 pm

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 1:56 pm

Let’s face it. Obama doesn’t think we need legislation for anything.

Not quite. After all, he seems to be lobbying the House Republicans rather heavily to pass smethung into law.

But there’s alot he thinks he can do.

In this case, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon, apparently, had decided that they couldn’t ask the Fisher Foundation to step in, (maybe that was ruling number 1) so Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was used as an intermediary.

Obama doesn’t think he is dictator. It’s more like he thinks he is the Supreme Court.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:18 pm

Sammy,

I think your approval rating is at like 17%.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:26 pm

Sammy, the Hyde Amendment is a rider that has to be attached to budgets every year.

http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf

SYNOPSIS: The Hyde Amendment is a rider to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services (HHS)/Education appropriations bill which prevents Medicaid and any other programs under these departments from funding abortions, except in limited cases.

It is not permanent.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:27 pm

Comment by Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 4:53 pm

Apparently the Congressional Research Service had concluded the death gratuity would be funded by the original Pay Our Military Act, as well.

The Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee of Military Personnel has asked for Hagel’s rationale for concluding that it wasn’t. The deadline was today but as far as I know Hagel hasn’t responded.

The only rationale I can think of, is that, although the death benefit was on the Pay and Allowances summary, it wasn’t really any kind of payment to the soldier because it was only issued when he was dead.

Now I am sure Obama had some lawyers in the Pentagon working overtime, essential personnel, or maybe covered by the newly enacted law that appropriated money for the military, looking for loopholes – things that they could maybe have an excuse for not paying.

And by following Justice Scalia’s principles of statutory interpretation, which ignore anything outside of the text of the law, they could find an excuse to not pay some things.

But even if death benefits were not covered on the grounds it was pay – because it did not go to the soldier – surely knowledge that death benefits were going to be paid, helped morale, and that would qualify it… but they weren’t looking for ways to be liberal.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:38 pm

They were just twisting the law, first this way and then that way, to create trouble, and then maybe avoid it, without, however, retracting anything that they had said..

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:39 pm

DRG@ 329 % 331, Obama never needed legislation and always could have fixed this by executive order. The fact that he didn’t and instead let those families go without their death gratuity tells you all you need to know about the man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPrkUwTFS4

A panel discussion of Fox, including Col. North, who is most expressive on this subject.

Megyn Kelly On Military Benefits: Does Obama Really Care About The Troops?

I think we know the answer to that question.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:43 pm

341. Comment by Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:27 pm

Sammy, the Hyde Amendment…is not permanent.

Then there is a sort of political understanding that it is not to be changed unless majorities in both houses agree.

Nobody holds up the appropriations or continuing resolution demanding the Hyde amendment be left out.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:45 pm

Obama doesn’t think at all, or if he does it’s about how he is the luckiest welfare recipient in history. These things are all thought up by his leash holders. He is only the front man and, now, the lightning rod. A figurehead err figuresuit err figuresomethingorother. Which does not mean it’s not ok to beat up on him. It’s what he signed up for in exchange for a multi-billion eight-year luxury outing at the taxpayers’ expense.

nk (dbc370) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:46 pm

*multi-billion dollar*

nk (dbc370) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:47 pm

Well that’s reassuring, facepalm;

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/teacher-makes-students-decide-who-lives-who-dies.html

narciso (3fec35) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:50 pm

345. Then there is a sort of political understanding that it is not to be changed unless majorities in both houses agree.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:45 pm

It’s routine. They just attach the boilerplate to every DoL/HHS/DoE budget/CR/appropriations bill. Just like they attach the defuning language to every budget for the ATF, preventing them from processing applications from felons to restore their gun rights. Which they’ve been doing since 1992.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:53 pm

344. Comment by Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:43 pm

Obama never needed legislation and always could have fixed this by executive order.

Not quite.

First, he could have avoided looking for things not covered by the military bill. There were two ways to cover this – consider it pay to the soldier, or consider it helped morale.

Then they evidentaly decided that the Pentagon couldn’t even ask a private charity to front the money.

Then they decided that if a charity offered it the Pentagon could agree to pay the money back.

And that while the Pentagon couldn’t ask, a Senator could.

I don’t know what the legal determinations were, for sure, but it’s just twisting and turning.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:54 pm

Nobody holds up the appropriations or continuing resolution demanding the Hyde amendment be left out.

They would if they thought they could get the numbers. But they know they can’t. It has solid support in both houses, so they don’t bother fighting it any more.

Milhouse (20dddd) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:58 pm

346. nk @ 6:46 pm

Obama doesn’t think at all,

I don’t think he comes up with all this strategizing by himself, but don’t you think he’s a rather good lawyer? (usually with a bad case)

Even if he’s more a barrister than a solicitor.

Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:01 pm

Obama is a terrible lawyer. He’s a good community organizer.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:07 pm

don’t you think he’s a rather good lawyer?

No. I don’t see any basis for thinking so. When has he demonstrated this alleged skill?

Milhouse (20dddd) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:07 pm

Sammy… from what planet do your operational instructions emanate? Your takes on most matters are not of this universe, no offense.

Colonel Haiku (89a861) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:21 pm

Sammy, in this case President “If Congess doesn’t act, I will” Obama really could have acted without any more legislation from Congress. He has that authority as CinC. His hands weren’t tied. I don’t know what you’re smoking, but where do he get the idea this was just something he couldn’t do?

Furthermore, there was no need for a charity to fund these fallen troops families’ travel to Dover to meet the caskets. He, as CinC could have authorized that travel.

Somehow on Planet Finkelman the Preezy who invented a Dream Act by executive fiat because Congress didn’t pass a law couldn’t have taken care of the troops as CinC.

But please, tell me how it works on Planet Finkelman.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:27 pm

There were two ways to cover this – consider it pay to the soldier, or consider it helped morale.

Yeuuh! He could have considered it pay. Or an allowance. Because a death gratuity is under the heading “pay and allowances.”

And there’s no “or” because it’s something that exists to help morale.

It’s fascinating trying to watch you puzzle these things out, then present your conclusions as if they’re facts.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:31 pm

The Congressional Research Service said Obama could pay the military death benefits under the military pay act Obama signed 9/30/2013. But it’s moot now because Obama signed the Military Death Benefits bill that the House and Senate passed this week.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:42 pm

This poll is totally bogus. The GfK poll gathered the data from members of their get-paid-to-take-surveys site, KnowledgePanel. It is utterly lacking in any sort of credibility.

“The Associated Press-GfK poll on the partial government shutdown and politics was conducted by GfK Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Oct. 3-7. It is based on online interviews of 1,227 adults who are members of GfK’s nationally representative KnowledgePanel.”

Morgan King (976255) — 10/11/2013 @ 12:52 pm

Because Morgan said so, it simply must be.

JD (5c1832) — 10/11/2013 @ 12:55 pm

DRJ @358, I don’t think this is water under the bridge. From what I understand, Reps like Marine combat vet Duncan Hunter Jr. are furious that the Obama administration sank this low to make political points, and they’re not going to let it go.

Vets are furious, too. The idea that the WH is pushing, apparently, that this was some sort of complicated legal question that revolved around a drafting error in the Pay Our Military Act is manufactured for people who don’t know better.

No offense, they were never in. But it just doesn’t fly with people who know better. The troops know better, too, but they can’t speak out like vets can.

I know veterans aren’t going to let it go. Obama deliberately screwed the families of fallen troops to create an issue. How dare they politicize that.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/11/2013 @ 1:07 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/11/senate-approves-bill-for-military-chaplains-to-conduct-services-during-slimdown/

Senate approves bill for military chaplains to conduct services during slimdown

DRJ, the government actually put up a sign at the Submarine Base Kings Bay chapel that said “No Catholic services until further notice.” Because they furloughed the civilian priests who they had on contract to provide on-base services for the sailors. And they threatened these priests with arrest if they offered services voluntarily.

They’ll let illegal immigrants use the National Mall. They’ll even set up porta-potties for them, and then later NPS rangers will pick up their trash.

But they’ll throw every barrycade they can in the way of vets trying to visit their memorials. Memorials built almost entirely with private donations.

Those same Vietnam and WWII vets who sent in contributions to build memorials to those they served with couldn’t even visit them if Obama had his way.

I don’t think you understand how angry people who are current and former military are at this administration for using us as pawns.

Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/11/2013 @ 1:22 pm

NeoSocs have to control the media since the truth isn’t on their side.

Perdok v (bb800a) — 10/13/2013 @ 8:17 am

“Larry Correia @monsterhunter45
You know who I want to control my access to healthcare? The same spiteful bastards who won’t let tourists photograph buffalo.”

SPQR (768505) — 10/13/2013 @ 8:24 am

10/9/2013

Obama Job Approval at 37%

364 Responses to “Obama Job Approval at 37%”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out