Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.
Yeah Obama has a pretty full plate, and the situation with Syria isn't helping matters either.
It didn't help the GOP either that it leaked Boehner was calculating a Yea vote for Syria would help win leverage in the upcoming debt ceiling debate. Yeah, use a Yea vote for war for political advantage. Pathetic.
Obama's best allies in the second term will likely be the GOP leadership if for no other reason that it makes them look more inept and craven than him.
Seriously, although according to Politico the House GOP has absolutely no intention of listening to its leaders on this one.
Many Dems are skeptical, as well.
LostOnHoth nailed it. An attack on Syria erases any remaining distinction between Obama and the Bush administration in terms of its policy on the use of force in areas where America's self defense is not directly at stake. Arguably that already happened long since with Obama's stepped up illegal drone war, but an attack on Syria is of course much more public. I fear the U.S. really crosses a kind of red line here. No UN, international support considerably diminished from our war against Libya, of course no credible link to any conceivable threat to the United States.
I am against a strike. But it must be pointed out, if the world relied on the UN when it came to enforcing what most consider to be international standards on issues like this, nothing would ever get done. The UN has no teeth, it is a non factor. The UN is completely impotent.
And to be clear, I don't think the US should be out in front of this. I actually think Obama should have let the world community and the UN take the lead.
I'm just pointing out, the UN is what it is.
In other news, if the US government goes down in flames, then America's ability to function as an international power will be done.
There's no money for a Syria strike, which ties right into the budget/debt ceiling fights. I'm not sure Obama has the leadership skills to carry us through this; the political skills, maybe, but not the leadership.
The UN is designed specifically for blocking international action when any particular security council member disagrees. As has been pointed out, this has made the UN a very potent tool for the U.S. in blocking international action against Israel on its many violations of international law and human rights.
I understand how it is constructed. I also understand how fragile concepts like "international law" are. The UN is a toothless cat. This is a dangerous world. It's not the UN holding things together. It never really was. The UN helps, but it cannot maintain order.
And I have no doubt that this is a lesson the 21st century will teach us. I think this will be a very bloody century.
Can we all finally admit that the Affordable Healthcare Act cannot do what was advertised? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ressure-on-white-house-for-obamacare-changes/
Well, relating to that, another former ally has come out against it:
The AFL_CIO, which is the largest labor union organization in the US, just released an official objection to the Affordable Care Act. The union was one of the strongest proponents back when the law was being debated, and in this objection, it said it still supports the idea of universal coverage. However, the union says that as written, the Affordable Care Act has too many negatives that out weigh any positives. What's interesting is that the AFL-CIO itself was going to issue a statement calling for the law to be repealed, but toned down that view during negotiation, and agreed to issue out a strong objection:
LABOR OBJECTION HERE
When the largest labor union in the US aligns with Congressional republicans on an issue, you have to know there is something there, and the devil just stocked up on winter coats and mittens.
The supporters of Obamacare here in The Senate must be busy. I'll help them out..."The AFO-CIO are just a bunch of racists!!!! The only real problem they have with The Affordable Healthcare Act is the color of Obama's skin! Surely after reading the bill we can ALL see the benefits of it! Damn fool Rednecks! And they are all on the side of Big Business!"
LOL. That last line slays!
No, try again.
How about this one: they're people who already have good health care.
And yet another Republican Governor decides to flip, and back ObamaCare (how many is this now, a dozen GOP governors?)
Yes. And Obamacare will make it too expensive. They will lose their plans. That's exactly my point. It's a bad law.
He was under a lot of pressure. He's also wildly unpopular, and unlikely to be re-elected.
That was a well thought out post Jabba. But the unions were hoping for (expecting?) special considerations. Sure they knew it was a bad law, but they thought they could dodge the bullet.
Look, it's impossible to take the good parts but leave the bad. The goals are all good. But the way it's paid for is bad. So you can't keep the goals and trim the payment. Everything is tangled. And why are there college loan policies in this bill?!
Also, when you talk about The Republicans putting forth ideas instead of killing this bad law you have to remember that The Republicans and the news media were banned from the writing and debate portions of this law. All they were allowed to participate in was a hastily arranged "idea swapping" session. Remember?
I consider myself a "regular person" and I'm not hurt by The Republicans. I'm hurt by this law. My insurance now has a $3,000 deductible. And my premiums have went up. And next year I will be taxed on the company match for my premium. I can't afford this! I've already had to switch to my wife's plan.
It's a bad law.
Looks like Obama thinks enough of Bain and Co.(an affiliate of Bain Capital) to pick Jeff Zients, a consultant with that co., as his top economic advisor.
Sure to rile up all those who thought Bain represented some of the worst aspects of today's global economy.
It's called the Affordable Care Act because it's about bringing affordable health care to those who don't currently have it. Am I to attach some special significance to the fact that it's not particularly popular among those who already have good health care? It's not about them.
It's modeled after a Republican proposal in the first place. Remember?
You're hurt by your insurance company retaliating against you because the law exists, which is not quite the same thing. By this logic any law which dares to regulate the health insurance system is a bad law because the insurance company will punish you. IOW, the system may be broken, but we should never, ever do anything about it.
How long before we join the rest of the civilized world and establish universal health care?
20 years? 40?
Probably less. That will be the next thing after this plan explodes in all of our faces
Here is what is going on. And it's happening right now to college tuition, so pay attention.
Everything is worth what some can or will pay for it. Right now the law dictates that American corporations buy health coverage. And the government picks up the tab on many who are left out. These are the two biggest pockets in the whole world. Why can't you afford to get your very own personal coverage? Because the laws are set up for "someone else" to pay it for you. So it is priced at the level THEY can afford, not you.
If you tell the insurance companies that the government and business will no longer pay the bill, and give them an 18 month time frame, there will be good policies available that you could afford. The solution is less government, not more.
And if a law tells an insurance company that they have to accept policies regardless of who is insured, it isn't the company's fault if they have to raise rates and/or cut policies to offset the bad law. It's the fault of the bad law. And doesn't that sound a whole lot like the government telling banks to fund many home loans regardless of the credit of the person seeking the loan? How did that turn out?
The biggest point I'd like to make about the actual cost of health care is this: Have you noticed the difference between what a person is charged who is paying his own bill as opposed to the much more outrageous bill an insurance company gets for the same service?
And the whole law is bad. It all needs to be struck down. Want an alternative? Let the open market set the price. No one paying but the insured. The costs will drop like a rock.