I don't know. You're the one that sets up these red herrings then tears them down. A pointless exercise in my opinion.Quote:
what is the emperor going to do next ,compel workers to invest in these instruments
|
I don't know. You're the one that sets up these red herrings then tears them down. A pointless exercise in my opinion.Quote:
what is the emperor going to do next ,compel workers to invest in these instruments
Trust me .... the idea of making them mandatory participation was being floated within hrs of the SOTU address.
This is just one example :
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303553204579349792616592648Quote:
In part because participation in the accounts is voluntary, it isn't clear whether they will catch on with employees, who must opt in to the program.
Alicia H. Munnell, who directs the Boston CollegeCenter for Retirement Research, said access to retirement savings plans "is the most serious problem we have, and a proposal like this sheds light on the problem, which is a good thing." But unless participants are automatically enrolled in the accounts, she adds, "you are not going to solve the coverage problem."
Why would you put it past him ? They made participation in Obamacare mandatory even though there is no constitutional authority to do so .(despite the pretzel logic of Chief Justice Roberts ).
The Chinese don't want to buy our debt so the next best thing is to force workers to finance the debt by buying low yield bonds .
Lots of assumption there Tom, and completely disregarding the settled law of the mandates. You may not agree but that doesn't make it illegal, or unconstitutional.
But a lot of this can be solved by congressional action, and the president could sign or veto, and let congress over ride if they chose to. The whole circumstance starts with is NO ACTION by congress.
you all act like this is the first time a President has had an opposition majority in Congress. That of course is not the case . The difference is that this emperor can't even bother to consult with his own party on legislation. Look at the stink he's making over some Dem Sen opposition to the easing of Iran sanctions . Harry Reid is opposing him on fast track trade . He is throwing his majority in the Senate under the bus with his energy policy .Look at all the Dems that decided this would be a good year to retire .. Waxman ;Bill Owens ,Jim Moran ,George Miller,Mike McIntyre ,Jim Matheson .Baucus ,Harkin ,Carl Levin ,Jay Rockefeller .... More coming as the elections get closer and they learn that they can't win because of Obamacare .
I said nothing or alluded in any way the reasons or blame the specific parties. Inaction of the congress is my assertion. Repubs are retiring too. Good luck hoping Obamacare gets repubs the senate, or keeps the house.
all I'm saying is that he has done none of the work required to get his legislative agenda passed. I'm not talking about endless campaign stops .. I'm talking about sitting down and or working the phones with members of Congress and forging deals to get it done .( a couple of golf rounds with Bonehead don't count) . Even with Obamacare he stayed in the White House and let Pelosi and Reid do all the work .
Face the facts .He loves the pomp and ceremony of being the Head of State ;but he is not really interested in doing the work required to get it done.
Tom it seems you think the primary goal of politicians is for their party to be in power, what happened to the ethic of trying to make a difference, of providing local representation, these too are motivations before the corruption begins. If you are licked before you begin there is no point running, just let the opposition take the seats. no it is good that politicians retire and give someone fresh a chance. This is a time when your nation needs a fresh perspective, the old one isn't providing results
After 5 years Tom, you can't blame one guy for getting nothing done. Some have more blame than others but the polls say Americans believe repubs have more of it.
yawn .. polls are meaningless . Yes I can blame one guy . He's the leader ;but he doesn't lead . Reagan took all the barbs from the Dems ,but knew that if he wanted to get anything done ,he'd have to roll up his sleeves and negotiate . He had nothing in common with Tip O'Neil and yet sat with him for hours crafting legislation . This is the stuff the emperor is not interested in doing . Clintoon did it and his Presidency is perceived as a success . Carter wouldn't /couldn't and his Presidency was a disaster . The emperor is on the Carter side of the ledger .
Tom it seems you thinkoh I get it . You think Waxman ,who is in line to be a powerful committee chair if the Dems took power is retiring to let some young gun get a chance ? lol Of course it's about power . Almost all of these clowns 'serve ' too long . That's why I favor term limiting their a$$es .Quote:
the primary goal of politicians is for their party to be in power, what happened to the ethic of trying to make a difference, of providing local representation, these too are motivations before the corruption begins. If you are licked before you begin there is no point running, just let the opposition take the seats. no it is good that politicians retire and give someone fresh a chance. This is a time when your nation needs a fresh perspective, the old one isn't providing results
Tom you know you can't work with negative people, when there is deliberate attempt to undermine a legislative program as there has been what do you expect? You alleged that Obama had made use of executive orders to "rule" but in fact it was shown he has made less use of this measure than others, so all your opposition is just crap, sour grapes or just plain gripes
Bonehead had little choice but let his right wing inexperienced colleagues get burned with their shutdown/hostage position. Before then he couldn't be seen crafting legislation or a grand bargain by those same colleagues. Big difference between Bonehead and Tip, since Reagan had a willing partner, and Bonehead though he was willing cannot take any executive input back to his TParty colleagues.
Progressives and liberals often criticize Obama for even talking to repubs and you can't blame them given the amount of cooperation he has received over the last 5 years. Matter of fact we see obstruction of everything by the opposition party. I define obstruction as stopping any legislation with no reasonable alternatives. Yes I have read what repubs consider as alternatives, and have provided many links to adopted amendments which of course get voted down despite repub input.
Talking to repubs to get legislation has been a waste of time and money, and the polls you dismiss bear that out. The whole plan was to blame the president for right wing obstruction in the first place. Just ask Mitch, that was his plan from day one.
How you can keep repeating that with a straight face knowing you have 2/3 of the government including Reid's do nothing, block everything Senate.
It's the third that you guys control that's the problem.
You think Republicans are to blame for everything, take some responsibility.
you see ,the thing is what the Dems mean by compromise is for the Repubics to surrender to the will of the emperor . last year the House passed over 160 bills;including dozens of jobs bills , many of which passed with broad bipartisan support ,that sat on Reid's shelf collecting dust ...never to even get sent to committee. Even when the emperor sends Reid a budget it sits on his shelf .
Exactly right, same with tolerance, race, women, diversity... compromise is walking in lockstep to the left.
I know about the 43 bills to repeal Obama Care. What were the other good ideas the House wants passed but Reid sits on it?
Some of the bills you cited in Cantors link show the prez signed the house bill and its stuck in the senate. You do know a bill has to be approved by the House and senate BEFORE its signed so what's up with that?
you are misreading the status chart . Only the parts in green have been completed .
The lady at the center of the alleged GOP war on women has filed to replace Henry Waxman. That's right the women who couldn't find her $9.00 prescription at the Target down the street, the genius that gave us the contraception mandate, the one, the only Sandra Fluke could be the next representative from Kalifornia. Good luck, Ms. Fluke.
What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.
What the hell is your problem? Nothing in that can be construed to mean I have something against women entering public service. It's called sarcasm, learn it and keep your nasty personal comments to yourself, bucko.Quote:
What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.
Hello again, Creationists:
If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?
In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What's your point?
Hello again, Steve:
I'm an evolutionist. I screw for fun.. You're a creationist, I'm just wondering if YOU do too.
excon
You don't think Christians have fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You must be familiar with the Song of Solomon . There is nothing in the bible that prohibits sex for pleasure between husband and wife. In fact 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 tells us to not abstaining from sex in marriage and to not deny conjugal rights of the spouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.
Oklahoma State Rep. Wants To Ban All Marriages | WebProNews
Quote:
“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner told News 9.
Nicole Flatow of Think Progressive mentioned how Turner's move draws parallels to the tactics used during Jim Crow south where the U.S. Supreme Court ordered states to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd contributed to a “massive resistance” campaign in which “Virginia legislature ordered the closure of schools subject to a desegregation order.”
“When that tactic was invalidated by courts, one county went so far as to shut down its public school system entirely from 1959 until 1964.” Flatow wrote.
Turner knows that his idea has made a few people uncomfortable, but says “I accept that.”
Tal
I think the state should but out of marriage. Marriage should imply a contract beyond that there is no place for the state in marriage
Contract = law.Quote:
Marriage should imply a contract
yes common law not statute law
Hello again,
Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?
excon
Don't believe I've ever made that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.Quote:
Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.
it's not a new idea that the state should get out of the marriage business. Like I said ;let the state deal with the legal contract and call it whatever it wants to call it . Just so you know that just because the state calls it a 'marriage ' doesn't make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Agreed! :-)Quote:
Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.
Hello again:
If they're OUT of the marriage business, then they're OUT of the marriage BENEFIT business too. So, I don't think there's too many married people in Ok who are gonna be fine with LOOSING those benefits.
I'll change the HATE word I used above, to STUPID. Do they really THINK they're going to do this, or are they just trying to SOUND STUPID???
excon
That will be the left's next demand if states go the way Oklahoma might go.Quote:
Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM. |