Adult supervision needed

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:19 pm

Here we are again, 26 years later, and the Republicans in Congress haven't changed one little bit. They're still acting like little 2-year old brats throwing temper tantrums. They keep trying to trash the government they hate and the destroy the nation in the process, even if their own party has the presidency. And I just love the House Republican's take-it-or-leave-it wish list, or else they'll shoot the dog.

[youtube]e6nNJiJsm70[/youtube]

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:09 pm

heard that list last night......it's as if they're saying, "give us everything we've lost elections over for a decade or we cause the nation to default."
Yeah, that will be really electable platform with independants and swing voters.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:57 am

So, who'll blink? Republicans, or Obama? Will Obama resort to the 14th Amendment? I don't think that tea partiers believe or understand that there will be a big negative impact to our economy if we actually default on our debt obligations. Even Reagan feared that. Perhaps they need to live as old retirees for awhile, dependent on government bond and stock market income just to live.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ompromise/

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:46 am

It's not that they don't understand TC, it's that their IQ of 65 doesn't let them process anything more than five minutes in front of their face.

Government spending = bad
Government shutdown = good

That's the only equation they think about. Have any of these idiot tea party people struck you as even being the slightest bit intelligent?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:58 am

I feel the same way TC. I cannot fathom how senators and congressmen serve even up to 50 years! I think principles should rule details. If the principle is sound, then the details take care of themselves. Anyone that serves that long breaks the preeminent principle of our form of government. No one perspective should have ever been allowed to establish itself. I wish they all had to be 80 years or older, and gone within 5 years.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:08 pm

flip wrote:I wish they all had to be 80 years or older, and gone within 5 years.

Term limits, yes, but what is this 80 years old crap? Older =/= wiser. There is a lot of crappy legislation in the books because older, clueless politicians have no idea how to approach new technology and new industries.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:28 pm

flip wrote:I feel the same way TC. I cannot fathom how senators and congressmen serve even up to 50 years! I think principles should rule details. If the principle is sound, then the details take care of themselves. Anyone that serves that long breaks the preeminent principle of our form of government. No one perspective should have ever been allowed to establish itself. I wish they all had to be 80 years or older, and gone within 5 years.

Oh Gawd! Bad idea! We'd have nothing but Strom Thurmonds in office if that were the case! Hell, the average age of our Senators is 60! Which is worse, creeping senility, or the stupidity of youth?

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:55 pm

Hehe, don't you think for a minute that all 80 year olds are feeble

and, just to enforce the first principle

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:02 pm

I would be content with 60-65, but 50 seems to be the dumbest age of all. By that time, you have lost all your fear and think you know everything

I knew an old lady I cut grass for. 98 years old and sharp as a tack. Used to laugh about how people thought they were old at 60. You don't hit your prime until you hit 40, but at 80 you start thinking about your demise

Makes you a little more forward thinking. Plus, most people don't reach an old age with a good mind and body by being stupid. In fact, I imagine you could put any decent person and he could do the job of protecting the principles set forth by the Constitution, the danger then is that he stays in long enough to do damage.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:17 pm

flip wrote:I would be content with 60-65, but 50 seems to be the dumbest age of all. By that time, you have lost all your fear and think you know everything I knew an old lady I cut grass for. 98 years old and sharp as a tack. Used to laugh about how people thought they were old at 60. You don't hit your prime until you hit 40, but at 80 you start thinking about your demise Makes you a little more forward thinking. Plus, most people don't reach an old age with a good mind and body by being stupid. In fact, I imagine you could put any decent person and he could do the job of protecting the principles set forth by the Constitution, the danger then is that he stays in long enough to do damage.

Geez, by 56, I already no longer give a damn and I AM thinking about my demise.

I'd like to reach 80, but if my bod's going to hurt worse than it does already now AND BE ANY MORE unable to do the things I normally do in life, no thanks.

By the way, I think 35 is the sweet spot. I felt good, thought clearly, had learned quite a bit and had the energy to get things done. By 40, everything started going downhill.

But you're right. Wisdom has set in by 60. The only problem is, you're also set in your ways and resistant to change when change is needed.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:38 pm

That's not Wisdom then

Plus, your still in your 50's

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:03 pm

haven't read the details, but now the Loony Bin(House) GOP wish to tack on some thing about women's reproductive rights, along with a one-year hold on the ACA..........no, I'd say to the OP: they don't get it, but my only hope is that they get the proper message loud and clear next November.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:25 pm

They were supposed of have gotten the message LAST November! Not only are they spoiled brats, they have a short memory. Remember? Obama WON touting Obamacare front and center during the election.

flip wrote:That's not Wisdom then Plus, your still in your 50's

Naw, one can still be wise, but also set in their ways, because it's just easier to stick with what you're used to dealing with all the time. However, my 50's is rapidly feeling like some 70's.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:41 pm

REALLY.

My question is "IF" its so important NOT to shut down the government. Then why did the democratic controlled senate take a 3 day weekend not planning on coming back until monday afternoon, KNOWING that the house would make changes to the CR and send it back with the shutdown coming on tuesday? Could it be the democrats WANT to shut down the government?

You people are such stooges. This IS what the democrats want. Stop pretending it isnt.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:13 pm

if the House doesn't send a simple continuing resolution, there is no point in rushing, CUDA. If the House does that, which is the standard and correct thing to do, at least for a 2 month type continuance, then the Monday arrival makes perfect sense. If they don't, the government closes, and it will close for a few days. Funny, CUDA, that you would infer that this is the Dems whole fault. It isn't. Were those this AMs talking points on Faux News and Tawk Radio?? hmmmm?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:34 pm

Nice bull★■◆● post there slickster. Trying to deflect the issue again huh

I see you didnt deny my point.

there is only no point when you dont make the effort. The senate chose not to make the effort.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:26 pm

CUDA wrote:REALLY.

My question is "IF" its so important NOT to shut down the government. Then why did the democratic controlled senate take a 3 day weekend not planning on coming back until monday afternoon, KNOWING that the house would make changes to the CR and send it back with the shutdown coming on tuesday? Could it be the democrats WANT to shut down the government?

You people are such stooges. This IS what the democrats want. Stop pretending it isnt.

If the House Republicans weren't being UNREASONABLE IDIOTS and would at least come to terms with THE FACT that Obamacare was already voted on AND pretty much approved BY Obama's re-election last November, maybe the Dems would have something to work with. BUT NOOOOOO, they just keep putting out time wasting bills that say THE SAME DAMN THING OVER AND OVER, that they REFUSE to settle the budget problem UNTIL Obamacare is gotten rid of, tossed out, nuked, delayed, PERIOD. And it's NOT Mr. Boehner, (who by the way is a functioning drunk and I can see why), who's the person in control of things in the House, but a has-been-retired-right-wing-think-tank-operator-who-left-for-the-money Senator, god ol' Jim DeMint, who wants Obamacare DEAD, no matter how much the country and the economy is trashed in the process to do it. Bastard.

Now if Republicans were more intelligent and cagey and PATIENT, all they'd have to do is bide their time. Upside down pyramids tend to fall over. Obamacare will eventually self implode because it doesn't fix the original problem, RISING COSTS and how to RATION an expensive resource that everyone wants. The keystone of Obamacare will break. So patience little grasshopper.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:22 pm

So, are the 17 Democrats that voted with the Republicans to delay the Democare act traitors and anarchists like Harry Reid called the Republicans that voted that way?

And are they UNREASONABLE IDIOTS like you called them?

and now the question is why is the president willing to shut down the government with his veto. The house is willing to fund democare for now. They just want a delay for a year. The same delay that the president gave big business. Plus they want to remove the tax on medical devices. So who is really shutting down the government? It seems to me that the GOP gave them what they wanted. Funding of Democare, but its the democrats and the president that are unwilling to compromise and are threatening to shut down the government, who are the ones not willing to negotiate?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:49 pm

The mental gymnastics and contortions you two perform in order to blame the other party never ceases to amuse me.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:16 pm

Krom wrote:The mental gymnastics and contortions you two perform in order to blame the other party never ceases to amuse me.

Wait for it....... TC will blame bush for it before this thread dies

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:11 pm

CUDA wrote:So, are the 17 Democrats that voted with the Republicans to delay the Democare act traitors and anarchists like Harry Reid called the Republicans that voted that way?

And are they UNREASONABLE IDIOTS like you called them?

and now the question is why is the president willing to shut down the government with his veto. The house is willing to fund democare for now. They just want a delay for a year. The same delay that the president gave big business. Plus they want to remove the tax on medical devices. So who is really shutting down the government? It seems to me that the GOP gave them what they wanted. Funding of Democare, but its the democrats and the president that are unwilling to compromise and are threatening to shut down the government, who are the ones not willing to negotiate?

Negotiate what? Removal of that excise tax and the one year delay? Those are nothing but tactics to chip away at the law and undermine it. Most of the Dems know it too. Why should they essentially negotiate against their own law? They'd be insane. Removing the excise tax would require finding some other funding source to replace that new shortfall. It's got to come from somewhere, and knowing Republicans, either Medicare or probably their preference, Obamacare. It's a built in landmine meant to destroy the law. I only see Republicans, and yes, a few Democrats catering to their red districts, wanting to to get rid of the law any way possible. Nothing else is satisfactory to them.

But before you nag, I'd like to see the law go away as well. But I'd at least give it a try first. If it's going to fail, it needs to fail on it's high costs, lack of merits and unfairness, not from the strong arm whims of the politicians. This shut-the-government-down-or-else tactic that is a wholly Republican House weapon is getting tired and old.

Not Bush's fault this time either.

Krom wrote:The mental gymnastics and contortions you two perform in order to blame the other party never ceases to amuse me.

Glad I could be of service.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:04 pm

And who do you think will end up paying any tax on medical equipment suppliers? Not that I agree with the Republican’s tactics at this point, but that particular tax is about as dumb as it gets.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:11 am

So you're willing to give big business a one year break from the law(which is unconstitutional by the way, the president didn't have the authority) but you wont give one to the average American. I thought you were all about the little guy and anti big business. Or is that only when it benefits your party?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:38 am

way to go, House!! Stock market opens down around 200 points(Dow index)......and wait until these loons start playing games with debt payments by the US. On the latter, I really hope that Obama uses the constitutional power granted to him and just enables all debts to be paid.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:50 am

Yeah slick, lets hope Obama turns into a little dictator, I'm sure that will cure all sorts of ills.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:52 am

Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:27 am

Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:16 am

Term limits that also prohibit a former congressperson to hold any job in the government or any job remotely similar to a lobbiest or work for any company that was the direct recipient of a government contract while said congressperson was in office would be great.
You would prefer someone younger who knew he or she was going to have to re-enter the civilian world and survive the crap they put into law while they were in power....

I would also put a wealth cap on the qualifications to hold office. If you have assets or annual income 30 times the nations median income you are disqualified. If you hide your wealth and accept a nomination you are subject to charges of treason.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:45 am

NO LIFE TIME PENSIONS

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:57 am

CUDA wrote:So you're willing to give big business a one year break from the law(which is unconstitutional by the way, the president didn't have the authority) but you wont give one to the average American. I thought you were all about the little guy and anti big business. Or is that only when it benefits your party?

No, it stinks. I don't think it's fair either. By the way, I realize that the Dems like to say they're for the average American, but I know that they're really not. Their compromise hairball of a healthcare law they came up with working with Republicans says it all, they caved in just to schmooze and make happy big business, ie., insurance companies, when they created it, and they schmoozed them all over again to give them a break for a year while us individuals got the shaft.

CUDA wrote:NO LIFE TIME PENSIONS

And no effing pay if they choose to shut down the government!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:05 am

woodchip wrote:Yeah slick, lets hope Obama turns into a little dictator, I'm sure that will cure all sorts of ills.

no dictatorship, just practicality. Nowhere does the Constitution make any reference to Congress needing to approve paying off already-appropriated debts. In fact, the Constitution explicity ORDERS that all legitimate debts of the Federal government be paid.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:06 am

CUDA wrote:
Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.
Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.

uncertainty drives markets down. This bunch of House loons is a steaming pile of uncertainty for the whole nation. They should be rooted out next year and never allowed to return.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:27 am

oh, and as for this whole 'we're doing what the People want us to do' nonsense from the House GOP? This just in from Forbes, hardly a mouthpiece for the left:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... obamacare/

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:45 am

Yeah, but only 36% think the government should require every American to buy health insurance. 50% are opposed outright. I'm guessing the 14% undecided will come to a decision very quickly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

What gets me is why do Republicans think all Americans hate Obamacare and that they will side with them in a government shutdown, when Americans clearly re-elected Obama and his mandate? Unless they did it because they hated Romney more than they hated Obamacare.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:24 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but only 36% think the government should require every American to buy health insurance. 50% are opposed outright. I'm guessing the 14% undecided will come to a decision very quickly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

What gets me is why do Republicans think all Americans hate Obamacare and that they will side with them in a government shutdown, when Americans clearly re-elected Obama and his mandate? Unless they did it because they hated Romney more than they hated Obamacare.

TC I don't think a lot of people really understood how Obamacare was going to affect them...
I think in just the last couple of months the effects are finally starting to be understood.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:27 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:
Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.
Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.
uncertainty drives markets down. This bunch of House loons is a steaming pile of uncertainty for the whole nation. They should be rooted out next year and never allowed to return.

Kind of like HEMMOR REID in the senate HUH?.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:28 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:
Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.
Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.
uncertainty drives markets down. This bunch of House loons is a steaming pile of uncertainty for the whole nation. They should be rooted out next year and never allowed to return.

You do realize back when Gingrich shut the govt. down the republicans gained 2 Senate seats. The real loon sits in the white house waving his magic twanger and granting all sorts of exemptions to his health plan. If the plan is so great there should be not waivers. I'm also guessing a lot of union members are not very happy and may be voting Republican this time around.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:27 pm

woodchip wrote:TC I don't think a lot of people really understood how Obamacare was going to affect them...
I think in just the last couple of months the effects are finally starting to be understood.

Problem is, some people are going to be happy, and others aren't. The law will only survive if most people end up happy with what they get, which I'm guessing will not be the case once it gets going full steam. If that happens, Republicans will get their wish. That's why they should quit griping and holding the government hostage. All they have to do is wait for it.......

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:40 pm

Well, I don't know about the 'American People', but Congress, corporations and the unions are all against it for sure. Plus, if the following quote is truthful, I'm against it on these grounds alone.

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary.”

“The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.”

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

“Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.”

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:51 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
woodchip wrote:TC I don't think a lot of people really understood how Obamacare was going to affect them...
I think in just the last couple of months the effects are finally starting to be understood.
Problem is, some people are going to be happy, and others aren't. The law will only survive if most people end up happy with what they get, which I'm guessing will not be the case once it gets going full steam. If that happens, Republicans will get their wish. That's why they should quit griping and holding the government hostage. All they have to do is wait for it.......

You may very well be right. I think tho, the Repub. have to show they are trying to do something to prevent AHCA . Right now, contrary to what the Obama loving press may present, If the countries economic health is so important, Obama should sign the bill and stop acting like a little child whose baseball is being taken away