Paul, you are correct that polls show that most blame the GOP. That doesn't make me wrong, when I say that (1) what the GOP is asking for, is not unreasonable, and that (2) Obama c ould have avoided the shutdown by agreeing to their reasonable demands.

Paul, a simple question...do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

"Is extortion a way to negotiate?"

Funny. When the Wisconsin legialature was going to reduce union benefits, and all the Dems in the state senate fled the state to halt the vote, I don't recall all this backlash against them. In Texas, when that Democratic state rep fillibustered for 24 hours to prevent an anti-abortion bill, she was hailed as a hero. When democrate are in the minority, I keep heraing that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". When a black Democrat is in the white house, dissent is racist and extortion. IS that what you're saying?

I don't like the shutdown. I particularly don't like it when our petty, vindictive President goes to unimaginable lengths to make it as painful as possible for WWII vets and families of those killed in action. If you're OK with Obama's actions there, that's your right. But those actions are a betrayal of the most basic duties of his office. He's a disgrace.

Looks like my kid should start mandarin classes soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The future if we keep kicking the can down the road as you prefer to do .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you want to pick and choose what should stay open or what aspects of the govern. should stay in force? Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid to those families or are they not being paid bc of the lack of action of Repub. lead House?

Quite seriously
 

i have ALIEN DNA

from those in the star system Sirius

therefore i am considered multi species human/alien :uhuh:

"Did the Pres. specifically do something to prevent the benefits paid"

Yes, he did. He chose not to sign an Executive Order to demand those payments be made. That was within his authority to do, and he chose not to do it. It's unbelievably cruel, an unthinkable betrayal.

"There was plenty of backlash. I'm sure you even started threads about it"

PaulS, here is my point, and read slowly because it's a valid point...there was no backlash from your side. There is only backlash when conservatives act like brats.

Paul, I answered your points. You, on the other hand, completely dodged a very simple yes or no question that I asked. So I'll ask it again. Please show me the same courtesy that I showed you, and answer my question, which is as follows...

do YOU think it's unreasonable for the GOP to ask that Obama give the same break to individuals that he is giving to companies, especially since individuals cannot sign up even if they wanted to? Yes or no?

"Who, other than you said it was racism?"

OK Paul. Now you are saying that no one claims that those who oppose Obama, do so because of racism? No one has said that? No one in Washington, no one in the media, not Jimmy Carter? No one has called the Tea Party racist? Obama himself, didn't say that the McCain campaign was going to try and make people afraid of the fact that he's black? Obama didn't say that?

Google it yourself if you can't be bothered to answer one yes/no question that I asked...

Paul, here is what then-canbdidate Obam asaid about John McCain in 2008...

"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

McCain is a decent guy, a war hero who made unthinkable sacrifices for his country. He was generous enough to adopt a BLACK GIRL FROM A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, and your hero said McCain was a racist.

When McCain didn't run a racist campaign, did Obama apologize? Did he admit he was wrong? Nope.

Have fun with that...

NM

I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval. Just because he's POTUS doesn't mean he can spend money illegally. They either had to do it via legislation or as they ended up doing through an outside channel.

To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt to create a division between the Commander in Chief and the troops just to score a few political points. That on it's own is pathetic.

By this is the GOP we have today, nothing is too costly if it reinforces the dream world some Republicans appear to be living in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Redo in 3 months . Cowards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

House still has to pass it.

But even then were just going to get another LSD inspired push to defund the HCB that's never going to happen...instead of some actual negotiation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul -

Twice, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. Both times you dodged. If my beliefs were so flimsy, that I could get boxed into a corner with such a simple yes/no question, I would take a long, hard look at why I believe what I believe.

I'll leave it at that.

"I don't the Obama coulda have done anything on death benefits via executive order without Congressional approval."

Then you would be 100% wrong. That's what an executive order, something the executive can order, unilaterally. Spence, you need to get in the habit of getting some facts before you spout off that your hero is innocent.

"To say this was cruel is a silly vain attempt "

Tell that to the families. Like your ghero, you are unable to put yourself in their shoes, because like your hero, you have nohting but disdain for them. If you don't htink that denying death benefits, when he could have restored them with a stroke of the pen, is cruel, that's your right.

It was the denial of benefits, and the barricading of open-air parks, which was a pathetic, vain attempt to score political points. And clearly it worked on you.

Get some facts, before you invent pro-Obama jibberish. Executive Orders. Look it up.

" They either had to do it via legislation "

Wrong on the facts. Google "Obama Executive Order", and you'll see that he has signed a few, which reults in money getting spent on things he wants, without legislative approval. Or maybe try enrolling in a high school civics class before invent pro-Obama fantasies...

It was about $3 million in benefits that he denied. Less than he spends on one of his many, typical, czar-like vacations. Nice!

Is LSD covered ?
I would be wiling to bet Obama and friends are more likely to have experimented then Cruz and company ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show me an executive order that spends money not already approved by another mechanism.

Show me some real analysis that the exec order was legal and at his disposal.

I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required for the money to come through the normal channel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I asked you do you still beat your wife and said that you had to answer with a simple yes or no, would (or could) you?

If it wasn't we have a single payer health care system now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apples and oranges. Read slowly and you'll seee why...

(1) I don't beat my wife

(2) The GOP is, in fact, asking Obama to treat individuals the same way he's treating businesses.

Yours was a trick question. Mine was not.

And you should go back and read my initial response.

How come when I say "he could have restored payments with executive order", you ask for proof. But when you say "I believe the DoD already did a legal review and told the WH congressional action would be required", you want us to take your word? Why is that?

In any event, here is an executive order signed buy Obama, to increase the scope and mission of Homeland Security. It invlilved increased funding.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...ission-the-u-s

I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

While you're playing with your fruit I'd note that number two is on its own a trick question. The need for the two mandates is not the same.

Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare which is going to create a dramatic rise in costs. It's fundamental to the plan...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP made a request.

I asked him if he though tthe request was reasonable.

That could only be called a trick question by someone who doesn't want to answer that question,m because then you have to choose between supporting fairness, or supporting your man-crush.

"Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare "

Why doesn't that apply to small businesses? How is that any different from the many, many 1-man businesses that are out there? If I own my own business, I also have a big incentive to enroll if I'm sick, or to not enroll if I'm healthy, right?

Did create new spending or just allocate previously approved spending?

What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?

How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?

And executive order isn't a magic wand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See below for what you originally asked. You didn't ask if their request was reasonable, you asked if it is "unreasonable for the GOP to ask ......" If you had asked that, I would have told you that w/o the individual mandate, the whole thing falls apart. Only a small amount of businesses where impacted by the postponement.

You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you:uhuh:

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

"What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?
"

Spence, since you demanded proof from me, allow me to retort. Where is your evidence that every Executive Order needs to be as vital to national interests as the one I posted? Obama has signed many Executive Orders, with varying degrees of importance. You can gtoogle it, I'm sure.

"How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?"

I don't know. I don't know what other veterans benbefits were cut. But I know it's inhumane to deny those benefits at a time when your Dear Leader is taking record amounts of tax revenue from the citizenry, and he uses large chunks of that to go on the most expensive vacations imaginable. Priorities, I guess...

Maybe if you had chosen to serve in the military during a timne of war, you'd have a small grasp of the level of betrayal that represents.

"And executive order isn't a magic wand."

It is if it's legal. And NO ONE would have challenged an executive order that reinstated those payments. No one. Very, very few people are capable of such a total lack of empathy. And the vast majority who are capable of it, are on your side. Kudos.

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.


:uhuh:

Has Obama created one cent of new spending in his 5 years? I hadn't noticed...

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're wrong. So who set the budget computers? What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?
I stand by my statement. Not somebody like Rumsfeld!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

So was it personal and directed directly at you like your insults usually are?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are really talking out of your asses here. DoD lawyers reviewed the law and didn't think the payments were legal. It's a felony to spend government funds not appropriated by congress. This has been widely reported.

So far you've produced nothing to counter this and instead resort to tired ad hominem attacks.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses.

It's also interesting that as a liberal, you are saying (with some validity) that it's OK to give corporations a break, but not the individual. because people on your side have a tendency for beating up those on my side, and accuse us of caring more about corporations than we care about individuals.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky.

I just don't like the feds being so involved. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

Please support your claim that Obama could not have fixed this with an executive order.

You are the one who has come up with one fabricated, desperate excuse after another, to justify this. Spence, one day, go to a military funeral, and maybe you'll learn something tat you won't learn by watching MSNBC or by reading The Daily Worker.

Spence, I just looked for support of your claim that lawyers determined that it would have been illegal to make those payments. I found nothing. Can you show us your evidence?

Even if that's true (and that's a very big if), since when did laws stop democrats from doing what they believe is just? For example, liberals support the disobedience of laws dealing with immigration. Don't our KIA's deserve the same courtesy as illegal aliens? You have fun with that one.

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.