OT More examples of generosity from President Obama
Ignoramus22050
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.
``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.
Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.
The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''
Jon Danniken
> Those who accused President Barack Obama of blah blah blah ad nauseum....
[snip political drivel]
Fuck obama and fuck you for posting this shit in a metalworking group.
Jon
Pete Snell
Wow. Have a little urea in your breakfast grains this morning Jon?
--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
William Benjamin Basil King (1859-1928)
Dave__67
wrote:
Well, may shame be heaped upon his head, perhaps.
Dave
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.22050.invalid> scrawled the following:
>Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
>towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
>wrong.
>
>``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
>groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
>Peace Prize.
All I can say is "What? They let him keep it?"
>Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
>nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
>Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
>to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
>earthquake.
>
>The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
>foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
>Africa and Central Asia.''
This is all good, tho.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
Wes
>Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
>towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
>wrong.
While I applaude his giving to Fisher house, I have a nagging thought in the back of my
mind that he is prohibited by law from accepting that 1.4M by ethics rules. In other
words, he can only accept an award with monetary value if he gives it away while he is
serving a term as President.
This may be a case of forced charity and if so, it doesn't count.
Wes
Steve B
"Dave__67" <spamT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:038d693e-c339-4d3d...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dave
Jon is just being Jon.
Wes
Jon, you just earned a 30 day time out for your language. I disagree with Iggy on the
charity thread on some other political issues but he tends to be on on topic a majority of
the time. I'm all over this Clausing 69xx threads since we both have one.
The regulars, as in contributors, tend to have wide ranging interests and we tend to
discuss those interests. Some tend to take every hook cast in the water by the trolls.
You might want to learn how to filter those people out.
See you next month. 30 day plonk! You are not the moderator, this is usenet.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
>Jon, you just earned a 30 day time out for your language. I disagree with Iggy on the
>charity thread and on some other political issues but he tends to be on on topic a majority of
>the time. I'm all over his Clausing 69xx threads since we both have one.
>
>
Damn, my spelling was bad. Please accept my corrections everyone. Didn't run the speel
chucker.
Wes
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
Little lights of awareness are going on in peoples' eyes all over the
world as you write that, Wes. <sigh> I wonder if Ig's will. ;)
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Kmfmn.30188$rq1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
Not ethics rules. Constitutional law. Nobody reads the Constitution, do
they? <g>
Article 1, Section 9. Congress would have to vote to allow the President to
accept any "emolument" from a foreign power. The Nobel committee is
quasi-governmental. It would be a tough call. But no president in his right
mind would accept the money for himself -- even if Congress voted to allow
it.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b99b138$0$5019$607e...@cv.net...
Especially not one with a seven or eight figure bank balance that was the
result of his own professional efforts.
It's interesting to compare the accomplishments of Obama and Bush at age 46.
Using that yardstick to measure the actual result Bush produced as
President, we ought to expect a pretty fair job from Obama in the end.
JC
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote in message
news:frKdnY82TYFfLgTW...@giganews.com...
Hmm. I'd have to look. I gather that he was still involved in failing
companies at that point. <g>
BTW, there is a complication to the Constitutional provision, but it cuts
both ways. Congress passed a law that's resulted in a federal statute, 5 USC
par. 7342, that essentially says that any gift that would "insult" a foreign
government (at the president's discretion) can be accepted. But it then
becomes government property -- specifically, of the Executive, in this case.
However, nobody in Congress it going to battle a contribution of such money
to legitimate charities, unless he wants to be made an ass by the media.
--
Ed Huntress
Steve W.
Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.
Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..
--
Steve W.
Ed Huntress
"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hncdtn$u9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Do you really know what you're talking about, Steve, or are you blowing
smoke? I just read the Constitutional provision and the federal statute to
be sure, and it sounds to me like you didn't read the White House press
announcement and what it means in context of the law.
In other words, *you're* the one doing the spinning.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
It's a safe bet that OLC weighed in on this one a long time ago and Obama
never recieved any payment - he directed the NC to pay it to the charities
he listed. They could have refused you know. Motives aside, the act itself
was both thoughtful and generous. That ought to be enough for anyone - even
the fair and balanced crowd.
I'm otherwise surprised, however, that it got any ink at all.
Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do that to a
person but I will say that if you have to be really sick, as in near death,
do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty fair and Scripps is right
down the street. Those guys can do just about anything.
LOL
JC
Steve B
> "Jon Danniken" <jondanS...@yaSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ignoramus22050 wrote:
>>> Those who accused President Barack Obama of blah blah blah ad
>>> nauseum....
>>[snip political drivel]
>>
>>Fuck obama and fuck you for posting this shit in a metalworking group.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>
> Jon, you just earned a 30 day time out for your language. I disagree with
> Iggy on the
> charity thread on some other political issues but he tends to be on on
> topic a majority of
> the time. I'm all over this Clausing 69xx threads since we both have one.
>
> The regulars, as in contributors, tend to have wide ranging interests and
> we tend to
> discuss those interests. Some tend to take every hook cast in the water
> by the trolls.
> You might want to learn how to filter those people out.
>
> See you next month. 30 day plonk! You are not the moderator, this is
> usenet.
>
> Wes
Iggy writes a lot about what he believes in, and in doing that, he does it
from a very well informed angle. Unlike others here who shall remain
nameless. At least he knows something of which he speaks. I don't always
agree with him. I didn't agree with my Dad on a lot of things, but we lived
in the same house for a long time.
Iggy does the deed on metalworking. He's building, looking to buy, fixing
up stuff, selling stuff he's fixed up to sell.
If there were more Iggys in this NG, it would be headed back to its glory
days.
Metalworkers are one thing.
Opinionated metalworkers are another thing.
Opinionated people who know nothing about metalworking, yet post piles of
garbage need to be recognized for what they are and ignored.
I can live with the first two, and I can live without the last one.
Steve
Don Foreman
In the end, eh? <G>
John R. Carroll
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:jdhjp5hjjc502ljbp...@4ax.com...
There have been a couple of notable wins but Obama is finding the truth in
the old adage that you can't lead from behind.
Time will tell what he takes from the lesson.
JC
Ed Huntress
That's exactly what I was thinking, and would have said next if you hadn't.
> They could have refused you know. Motives aside, the act itself was both
> thoughtful and generous. That ought to be enough for anyone - even the
> fair and balanced crowd.
>
> I'm otherwise surprised, however, that it got any ink at all.
There's a lot of Web space and column inches to fill. <g>
>
> Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do that to
> a person but I will say that if you have to be really sick, as in near
> death, do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty fair and Scripps
> is right down the street. Those guys can do just about anything.
> LOL
Damn, I was just getting worried about you on Monday, and was going to ask
if anyone knew where you were. So, are you doing Ok now?
--
Ed Huntress
Wild_Bill
What there is now.
I've made my position clear with Ignoramus before, regarding useless
bullshit news stories. He acts reformed for a while, then more senseless
shit.
Just like a child, he needs to be reminded.
Anyone that wants news, knows where to find it, for fucks sake. Political or
not, I couldn't give a fat rats ass what other peoples'/strangers' opinions
are about celebrity news, sports/political figure hero worship, etc.
Many of the regulars here now, don't even know what this group was like when
it was ON topic.
I couldn't care less if I'm killfiled either, doesn't matter to me one way
or another, since I don't need to post numerous HELP messages per month.
One new poster mentioned a few days ago that he was hesitant to even ask a
question here, because of the finatics here (that aren't interested in
having this newsgroup any better than it is).
The only things the finatics are here for is to promote their distorted
agendas.
Otherwise, if someone isn't objecting to the bullshit, it just shows that no
one gives a shit what the useless riff-raff and finatics do next.
The Delete key is the only reason I still visit this newsgroup. Others can
get frustrated and download this or that, and experiment with tools or
features if they like to.
For those that would prefer to keep silent (for what reason I don't know)
and let the newsgroup continue to deteriorate, you don't deserve any
sympathy, understanding or cooperation.
There are no-bullshit metalworking forums such as Chaski, for those that
just get fed up, and that's where numerous former RCMers have gone.
--
WB
.........
John R. Carroll
I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy <G>
Next week will tell the tale on the effectiveness of treatment. Nothing like
a drug resistant nosicomial infection masked by the seasonal flue to ruin
your whole day.
I'll either be calendaring a motion next week in an unlimited civil case or
not and if it's the not option, I'll be in real trouble healthwise.
You ought to see me argue before the court Ed. I really do my homework and
that's surprised some folks.
I just need to be able to breath.
You take care.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> scrawled the following:
I'm surprised that he didn't conclude his text with "BOHICA!"
Liberals. Well, at least they're consistent.
Steve W.
U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 9
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince or foreign State.
In order to deal with the above and allow some gifts to be given without
constant action be Congress they passed the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations act of 1966. It and legislation passed in 1977 were
Congressional items that do allow Federal Officials to accept gifts up
to an amount set by the General Services Administration. The current
amount that is allowed to be kept is $335.00
See the GSA regulations on Federal Management Subchapter B - Part 102-42
Part 102-42—Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and
Decorations
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=17113&channelId=-24555
Some of the relevant excerpts below.
§102-42.5—What does this part cover?
This part covers the acceptance and disposition of gifts of more than
minimal value and decorations from foreign governments under 5 U.S.C.
7342. If you receive gifts other than from a foreign government, you
should refer to 102-36.405 of this subchapter B.
§102-42.10—What definitions apply to this part?
The following definitions apply to this part:
“Decoration” means an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or
award offered by or received from a foreign government.
“Employee” means:
(((Snipped 1,2 and all after 5)))
(3) An individual employed by or occupying an office or position in the
government of a territory or possession of the United States or the
government of the District of Columbia;
(4) A member of a uniformed service as specified in 10 U.S.C. 101;
(5) The President and the Vice President;
“Foreign government” means:
(1) Any unit of foreign government, including any national, State,
local, and municipal government and their foreign equivalents;
(2) Any international or multinational organization whose membership is
composed of any unit of a foreign government; and
(3) Any agent or representative of any such foreign government unit or
organization while acting as such.
“Gift” means a monetary or non-monetary present (other than a
decoration) offered by or received from a foreign government. A monetary
gift includes anything that may commonly be used in a financial
transaction, such as cash or currency, checks, money orders, bonds,
shares of stock, and other securities and negotiable financial instruments.
“Minimal value” means a retail value in the United States at the time of
acceptance of $335 or less, except that GSA will adjust the definition
of minimal value in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
General Services every three years, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, to reflect changes in the consumer price index for the
immediately preceding 3-year period.
§102-42.15—Under what circumstances may an employee retain a foreign
gift or decoration?
Employees, with the approval of their employing agencies, may accept and
retain:
(a) Gifts of minimal value received as souvenirs or marks of courtesy.
When a gift of more than minimal value is accepted, the gift becomes the
property of the U.S. Government, not the employee, and must be reported.
(b) Decorations that have been offered or awarded for outstanding or
unusually meritorious performance. If the employing agency disapproves
retention of the decoration by the employee, the decoration becomes the
property of the U.S. Government.
§102-42.20—What is the typical disposition process for gifts and
decorations that employees are not authorized to retain?
(b) Monetary gifts. When an employee receives a monetary gift above the
minimal value:
(1) The employee must report the gift to his/her employing agency within
60 days after accepting it.
(2) The employing agency must:
(i) Report a monetary gift with possible historic or numismatic (i.e.,
collectible) value to GSA; or
(ii) Deposit a monetary gift that has no historic or numismatic value
with the Department of the Treasury.
§102-42.70—Who handles gifts and decorations received by the President
or Vice President or a member of their family?
The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts
and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member
of the President’s or Vice President’s family.
§102-42.125—How is donation of gifts or decorations accomplished?
The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP) must initiate the process
on behalf of a prospective donee (e.g., units of State or local
governments and eligible non-profit organizations) by:
(a) Completing a Standard Form (SF) 123, Transfer Order Surplus Personal
Property, and submitting it to General Services Administration, Property
Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the
SF 123 with the words, “FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS.”
(b) Attaching an original and two copies of a letter of intent to each
SF 123 submitted to GSA. An authorized representative of the proposed
donee must sign and date the letter, setting forth a detailed plan for
use of the property. The letter of intent must provide the following
information:
(1) Identifying the donee applicant, including its legal name and
complete address, its status as a public agency or as an eligible
nonprofit tax-exempt activity, and the name, title, and telephone number
of its authorized representative;
(2) A description of the gift or decoration requested, including the
gift’s commercially appraised value or estimated fair market value if no
commercial appraisal was performed; and
(3) Details on the planned use of the gift or decoration, including
where and how it will be used and how it will be safeguarded.
Basically it says that NO member of government can accept awards or
decorations without approval of the Congress. That includes the Peace
Prize. It further states that money in excess of 335.00 cannot be
accepted and HAS to be either turned over to the Treasury OR it can be
donated. However that decision is made by Congress NOT the individual
who gets the money in the first place.
Then the actual donation has to be approved through Congress.
So like I said earlier, He cannot accept the money, so instead of
saying, "I cannot accept this money and instead am turning it over to
the U.S. Treasury and requesting that Congress donate it to these
charities that I listed"
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
--
Steve W.
RBnDFW
But if he really wanted to keep it, he would, because "The election is
over, and I won"
John Martin
So, those being the "more examples", please tell us of the previous
examples of Obama's generosity to which they have been added.
John Martin
rangerssuck
[snip]
> The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
> When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
> Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
>
> --
> Steve W.
For fuck's sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
>twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
>posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy <G>
My best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. Naps are
good.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Steve W.
Oh he might try that, but I don't think even he is that stupid. That
would land him in even deeper water than his ignorance of reality
already has.
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
As long as you wake up....
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
charity. Same principle.
Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
stranger things have happened.
--
Steve W.
Wes
>>>>>>>
>>> Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do
>>> that to a person but I will say that if you have to be really sick,
>>> as in near death, do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty
>>> fair and Scripps is right down the street. Those guys can do just
>>> about anything.
>>> LOL
>>
>> Damn, I was just getting worried about you on Monday, and was going
>> to ask if anyone knew where you were. So, are you doing Ok now?
>
>I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
>twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
>posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy <G>
>Next week will tell the tale on the effectiveness of treatment. Nothing like
>a drug resistant nosicomial infection masked by the seasonal flue to ruin
>your whole day.
Please conserve your strength and fight the battle that really matters.
Best wishes,
Wes
Steve W.
If he wants to be a nice guy he should pony up HIS money not taxpayer
money. How about he donates his Presidential salary to the cause.
That would be a DONATION.
What you are giving him credit for is the same thing as saying that a
person who robbed a bank and then donated the money to charity did a
good thing.
--
Steve W.
Hawke
Much to their dismay, the right wing is going to find out the hard way
that Obama is their worst nightmare. He's a smart guy that knows how to
manipulate the system better than anyone. He's got a lot of irons in the
fire right now. He's out to make a lot of changes and he's not going to
stop until he gets them done. This is going to come down to a test of
who is going to prevail Obama or the republicans. Obama isn't going to
back down and he's going to just keep going and going and going. That's
what gets things done. Refusing to quit until you get your way. That's
Obama. That's real bad news for the republicans who thought they were
going to stop him from getting his agenda done. I'm enjoying the fight.
My money is on Obama. Last time my money was bet that Bush would muck
things up. My record on these things is pretty good if I do say so
myself. Poor republicans.
Hawke
RogerN
"Ignoramus22050" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.22050.invalid> wrote in message
news:JtWdndVyeo2b8wTW...@giganews.com...
> Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
> towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
> wrong.
>
> ``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
> groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
> Peace Prize.
>
> Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
> nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
> Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
> to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
> earthquake.
>
> The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
> foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
> Africa and Central Asia.''
Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.
The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood. Imagine a bill that
is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but the Democrats want
the pass it without a vote, since they don't have enough votes to pass it
the constitutional method.
RogerN
RogerN
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c61739ab-94a7-4d31...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Actually if the news was that Obama can't swim, it would be spun into "Obama
walks on water". Steve's just unspinning what has already been spun.
RogerN
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:Ac-dndNqaLCthgfW...@giganews.com...
Oh, jeez, John, that doesn't sound good. Please keep us informed about how
it goes.
(I don't think I'd be surprised at how you argue before the court. <g>)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Decorations
> http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=17113&channelId=-24555
>
> Some of the relevant excerpts below.
>
>
> This part covers the acceptance and disposition of gifts of more than
> minimal value and decorations from foreign governments under 5 U.S.C.
> 7342. If you receive gifts other than from a foreign government, you
> should refer to 102-36.405 of this subchapter B.
>
> gift or decoration?
>
> Employees, with the approval of their employing agencies, may accept and
> retain:
>
> (a) Gifts of minimal value received as souvenirs or marks of courtesy.
> When a gift of more than minimal value is accepted, the gift becomes the
> property of the U.S. Government, not the employee, and must be reported.
>
> (b) Decorations that have been offered or awarded for outstanding or
> unusually meritorious performance. If the employing agency disapproves
> retention of the decoration by the employee, the decoration becomes the
> property of the U.S. Government.
>
> decorations that employees are not authorized to retain?
>
> (b) Monetary gifts. When an employee receives a monetary gift above the
> minimal value:
>
> (1) The employee must report the gift to his/her employing agency within
> 60 days after accepting it.
>
> (2) The employing agency must:
>
> (i) Report a monetary gift with possible historic or numismatic (i.e.,
> collectible) value to GSA; or
>
> (ii) Deposit a monetary gift that has no historic or numismatic value
> with the Department of the Treasury.
>
> or Vice President or a member of their family?
>
> The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts
> and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member
> of the President's or Vice President's family.
>
>
> The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP) must initiate the process
> on behalf of a prospective donee (e.g., units of State or local
> governments and eligible non-profit organizations) by:
>
> (a) Completing a Standard Form (SF) 123, Transfer Order Surplus Personal
> Property, and submitting it to General Services Administration, Property
> Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the
> SF 123 with the words, "FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS."
>
> (b) Attaching an original and two copies of a letter of intent to each
> SF 123 submitted to GSA. An authorized representative of the proposed
> donee must sign and date the letter, setting forth a detailed plan for
> use of the property. The letter of intent must provide the following
> information:
>
> (1) Identifying the donee applicant, including its legal name and
> complete address, its status as a public agency or as an eligible
> nonprofit tax-exempt activity, and the name, title, and telephone number
> of its authorized representative;
>
> (2) A description of the gift or decoration requested, including the
> gift's commercially appraised value or estimated fair market value if no
> commercial appraisal was performed; and
>
> (3) Details on the planned use of the gift or decoration, including
> where and how it will be used and how it will be safeguarded.
>
>
>
>
> Basically it says that NO member of government can accept awards or
> decorations without approval of the Congress.
Congress has given blanket approval for certain circumstances, Steve. You
quoted the GSA regulations, but those are administrative rules intended to
implement the federal statute, which is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00007342----000-.html
Note that under section (d) of the statute, it's up to the "employing
agency" whether a decoration of more than minimal value can be accepted. In
this case, that means the President himself. This is acknowledged in the GSA
regulations, as well, in the section titled "Care, Handling, and
Disposition":
As for the money, as John said, it probably never was transferred to the
President himself or actually in his possession.
There also is the question whether this statute and these regulations apply,
because, although the Nobel committee is chosen by the Swedish parliament,
the prize is awarded by the private Nobel Foundation. Unlike committees that
are appointed by Congress in the US, and then disperse government money,
the Nobel Foundation's money comes from the original Nobel will. So that
one would be a tough legal question to answer.
But none of that was the issue. The issue was Wes's and your claim of
"spin." It appears you still may not have read the press announcement from
the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-donates-nobel-prize-money-charity
Nowhere does it claim that it was the President's money. All it says is that
it was money that came with the prize and that the President has decided who
it will be donated to. Unless you have some information that he actually
received the money -- that you know what account it went into -- the
question of "spin" is all in your own head. There are no unwarranted claims
in the announcement, and you apparently misunderstand the provisions of the
law for acceptance of the decoration.
<snip>
> So like I said earlier, He cannot accept the money, so instead of
> saying, "I cannot accept this money and instead am turning it over to
> the U.S. Treasury and requesting that Congress donate it to these
> charities that I listed"
Nope. Read it again. The press release didn't say it was "his" money.
If it was, you can be sure that the long knives would be out among the
Republicans, and someone would have filed a complaint with the
GSA and demanded that charges be pressed by the Attorney
General. They wouldn't miss such an easy opportunity to stick their
political knives in.
Now, it's not likely that many members of Congress would have done it,
but we would have heard from some of the operatives.
>
> The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
> When in reality it is NOT his money.
That's all in your head. Read the press release.
> It is actually taxpayer money.
Very unlikely. See above.
> Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
All in your head. You see everything in terms of how you can cut him down.
There is no objectivity or equanimity in your claims, and you missed some
key
legal issues.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
> rangerssuck wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
>>> When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
>>> Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve W.
>>
>> For fuck's sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
>> you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."
>>
>
> If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
> However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
> considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
> charity. Same principle.
What a ridiculous statement. He didn't "rob" it. He won it, and decided
where it would go. Unless you have some information to the contrary, it's
unlikely that he ever took possession of it.
>
> Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
> stranger things have happened.
>
Maybe you should read the statute again, yourself. And read the press
release. Then tell us what laws were broken. And if you find one, tell us
why the RNC isn't screaming for an investigation as we speak. It's their
nature, you know.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:pJWdnZ3MLIZJSgfW...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Ignoramus22050" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.22050.invalid> wrote in message
> news:JtWdndVyeo2b8wTW...@giganews.com...
>> Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
>> towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
>> wrong.
>>
>> ``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
>> groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
>> Peace Prize.
>>
>> Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
>> nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
>> Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
>> to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
>> earthquake.
>>
>> The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
>> foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
>> Africa and Central Asia.''
>
> Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.
And whose money do you think it is, Roger?
>
> The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
> our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
> constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
> care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood.
Which consistitution are you reading? The constitution of Berzerkistan?
This isn't you by any chance, is it? <g>
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
> Imagine a bill that is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but
> the Democrats want the pass it without a vote, since they don't have
> enough votes to pass it the constitutional method.
Wrong constitution, Roger. It's only about 4,500 words, not counting the
Amendments. You should stop and read it some time.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Did you read the press release, or are you just blowing smoke, too?
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
We have a constitutional process for things like the health care bill. They
don't have the votes and are trying to cram it through other ways.
RogerN
Ed Huntress
They only need 51 votes in the Senate, Roger. They have more than that, and
more than are needed in the House.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is all about Senate
rules, which have frequently been changed. The relevant one, concerning
cloture, was changed in 1975. In 2009, Republicans set a new record of
invoking it over 100 times.
It's a way for the minority to subvert the will of the majority, and the
Founders probably are rolling over in their graves that such a thing was
ever put in place.
You're an honest guy, Roger, so I'm going to do you a favor here and, rather
than explain it all, suggest that you (1) actually read the Constitution, so
you don't sound like one of these idiots who keep yelling about "getting
back to the Constitution as it was written," when they really have little
idea about what's in it; then (2) read about "cloture" and "filibuster."
Wikipedia will do.
To me, there are few things sadder than sincere people who get twisted
around the little finger of media pundits because they don't really know
what's in the Constitution, or how Congress works.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>> Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
>> If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
>> law.
>>
>> Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..
>
> But if he really wanted to keep it, he would, because "The election is
> over, and I won"
That's right. And your side lost. This is how it works. I know you hate
it that the side that beat you gets the chance to do things in ways you
don't want. That's too bad, for you. The fact you wingers are extremely
sore losers is crystal clear. From day one you folks have done nothing
but bellyache about everything Obama has done. You're just going to have
to get used to it though because Obama has lots of time to do whatever
he wants. The funny thing is how much you guys like democracy when your
candidate wins but you seem to hate it when your side loses. Yeah, it's
really tough but that's life. When you lose you don't get to call the
shots, and the rest of the country is so thankful you don't.
Hawke
Hawke
> Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.
>
> The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
> our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
> constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
> care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood. Imagine a bill that
> is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but the Democrats want
> the pass it without a vote, since they don't have enough votes to pass it
> the constitutional method.
>
> RogerN
You also seem not to know that the health care bill has already passed
the senate and the house. So your representatives have done their work
and passed the law, which is how it is supposed to work. You also seem
to have forgotten what happened in 2008 so I'll remind you. The
Democrats won everything by a strong margin and they said at the time
their goal was to pass health care reform, and that is why they were
elected, to do that. The public was strongly behind reforming health at
the time. Now, after a full on campaign by the right wing to convince
the public not to do it some have changed their minds. But the
circumstances haven't changed and the system needs to change or it will
fail. So if you want to call that being crammed down your throat, go
ahead. The facts are that change has to happen. Democrats have faced
that fact are are finally addressing the problem. Now it's your turn.
Hawke
Steve W.
> "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hned9s$ma9$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> rangerssuck wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
>>>> When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
>>>> Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Steve W.
>>> For fuck's sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
>>> you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."
>>>
>> If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
>> However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
>> considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
>> charity. Same principle.
>
> What a ridiculous statement. He didn't "rob" it. He won it, and decided
> where it would go. Unless you have some information to the contrary, it's
> unlikely that he ever took possession of it.
Ed you might want to take a reading comprehension course.
Obama cannot legally take possession of the money. Period.
The money would legally have to be transferred to the U.S, treasury for
disposal per the law. This is all covered under the GSA regulations as I
showed in my other post.
As such the money now falls under the purview of Congress.
Obama made the announcement about what HE wanted done with the money,
when that choice is not his to make.
> Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
> towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
> wrong.
>
> ``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
> groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
> Peace Prize.
>
> Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
> nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
> Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
> to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
> earthquake.
>
> The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
> foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
> Africa and Central Asia.''
Now unless these words mean something different.
"$1.4 million he received"
"He will give another $200,000"
I read that as HE is giving away money that HE had no legal right to
accept. That is a FAR cry from charity.
Charity is reaching into your OWN wallet and giving YOUR money, or
giving of YOUR time.
Having it attributed to you that YOU are giving money to charity when
the money can not legally be yours in the first place is the problem.
What does the title of this post say?
>
>> Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
>> stranger things have happened.
>>
The press release is NOT the problem. The problem is that in no way can
this be claimed to be charity on his part.
--
Steve W.
RogerN
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hngo3u$j56$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I want healthcare reform too but I don't think it should be used to channel
billions of dollars to planned parenthood for taxpayer funded abortions.
RogerN
Wes
>It's a way for the minority to subvert the will of the majority, and the
>Founders probably are rolling over in their graves that such a thing was
>ever put in place.
If the founding fathers wanted a simple majority to prevail, they would not have created a
Senate. The Senate's purpose is to represent each States interest.
I doubt the founding fathers are rolling atm, we at least about this.
Wes
John Martin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting for all those examples, Iggy.
John Martin
Ignoramus27323
> On Mar 12, 12:36?pm, John Martin <jmartin...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 5:26?pm, Ignoramus22050 <ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.
Here's one for you. He donated $15,000 towards Haiti earthquake
victims earlier.
i
Ed Huntress
I think you're wrong.
Federalist 62 (Madison or Hamilton):
"Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the
Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of
legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence,
first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States."
Or Federalist 10 (Madison):
"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the
republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister
views by regular vote."
The Founders set up the Senate so that it would pass legislation by majority
vote. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others frequently spoke of the fact
that the majority rules. Their larger concern was that factions would form,
in the minority or the majority, and defeat the will of the true majority by
their minority, "sinister views."
Much nonsense has been made of the anti-majoritarian remarks and concerns of
the Founders. They wanted cool heads to prevail -- thus, the Constitution --
but they also wanted the majority to rule. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were
very uncomfortable with the Senate, which they saw as anti-majoritarian and
anti-republican. And, as Hamilton said:
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case
where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency,
to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser."
(Federalist 22)
This Senate rule that allows the minority to subvert majority rule has a
long and sordid history. I doubt if the Founders would have favored it;
until 1806, the previous question in the Senate could be moved, ending
debate. Until the 1830s, the filibuster, and threats of it, were never used.
Now threats of it are used all the time. So we have a Congress that can't
get anything done.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>
>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:ZF4nn.68487$Jq1....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It's a way for the minority to subvert the will of the majority, and the
>>>Founders probably are rolling over in their graves that such a thing was
>>>ever put in place.
>>
>>
>> If the founding fathers wanted a simple majority to prevail, they would
>> not have created a
>> Senate. The Senate's purpose is to represent each States interest.
>>
>> I doubt the founding fathers are rolling atm, we at least about this.
>>
>> Wes
>
>I think you're wrong.
>
>Federalist 62 (Madison or Hamilton):
>
>"Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the
>Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of
>legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence,
>first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States."
>
From that same Federalist 62
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently
the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small
States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people
thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share
in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a
simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the
common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic,
partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded
on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is
superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed
on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual
deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered
indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by
the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government
founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to
be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between
the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative,
the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a
fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather
the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a
constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual
States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality
ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not
less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation
of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the
additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or
resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people,
and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check
on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the
peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational,
if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would
otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by
their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the
lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to
which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the
Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
>Or Federalist 10 (Madison):
>
>"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the
>republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister
>views by regular vote."
>
>The Founders set up the Senate so that it would pass legislation by majority
>vote. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others frequently spoke of the fact
>that the majority rules. Their larger concern was that factions would form,
>in the minority or the majority, and defeat the will of the true majority by
>their minority, "sinister views."
>
>Much nonsense has been made of the anti-majoritarian remarks and concerns of
>the Founders. They wanted cool heads to prevail -- thus, the Constitution --
>but they also wanted the majority to rule. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were
>very uncomfortable with the Senate, which they saw as anti-majoritarian and
>anti-republican. And, as Hamilton said:
>
>"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case
>where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency,
>to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser."
>(Federalist 22)
>
>This Senate rule that allows the minority to subvert majority rule has a
>long and sordid history. I doubt if the Founders would have favored it;
>until 1806, the previous question in the Senate could be moved, ending
>debate. Until the 1830s, the filibuster, and threats of it, were never used.
>
>Now threats of it are used all the time. So we have a Congress that can't
>get anything done.
You don't get it, some of us would rather Congress do very little since everytime it 'gets
something done' it is at the further expense of liberty.
Wes
RogerN
"Ignoramus27323" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.27323.invalid> wrote in message
news:M-edncUZ4swruQDW...@giganews.com...
Iggy,
Just wondering if your filter you wrote filtered out this OT thread? I
wonder if it could move you to your own ignore list :-)
RogerN
RogerN
If they already have the votes then what is the holdup? Why this Slaughter
solution?
http://www.aclj.org/OnTheRadio/
I know you don't like them because they aren't Atheists but they argue
constitutional cases before the supreme court. I hear them on the way home
from work depending on what time I get off work.
They will explain to you how the constitution is being bypassed for obama's
agenda. They have the lies recorded and play them back during their radio
program. If you have time listen to the past few days of their broadcast.
RogerN
Ed Huntress
Gee, Wes, why don't you just quote the whole thing? <g>
What you're quoting here is a discussion of the federal versus national
approaches to government, and a defense of the Senate. The part that
addresses the subject says that it works by passing laws with a
"concurrence, first, of a MAJORITY of the people, and then, of a MAJORITY of
the States."
IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR MINORITIES TO SUBVERT MAJORITIES.
Yeah, I get it. Some of the people here would rather that Congress do
nothing until they have a mind to do something that will benefit THEM
directly. And they don't care how they do it, or what tricks they use to
subvert the way our government is set up and run.
The extreme example of this is the characters here, the Sons of Timothy
McVeigh, who want to threaten government officials at the point of a gun
until they do what their little cadre of freaks wants them to do.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> You don't get it, some of us would rather Congress do very little since
>> everytime it 'gets
>> something done' it is at the further expense of liberty.
>
>Yeah, I get it. Some of the people here would rather that Congress do
>nothing until they have a mind to do something that will benefit THEM
>directly. And they don't care how they do it, or what tricks they use to
>subvert the way our government is set up and run.
Ed, you just made a great arguement for how many that want National Health Care or the
Public Option will do anything to get their way. They don't care who has to pay, how it
affects others that do have health care, they just want government to give them something,
and give it to them as close to free for them as possible.
>
>The extreme example of this is the characters here, the Sons of Timothy
>McVeigh, who want to threaten government officials at the point of a gun
>until they do what their little cadre of freaks wants them to do.
Now how did you leap to that crap?
Wes
Ignoramus27323
I only cancel thread and subthreads started by a few certain
individuals, like Cliff.
i
Hawke
Do you think that if you show him actual examples of Obama's generosity
it'll have any impact on him at all? Because I doubt it. All he is
really doing is looking for an opportunity to knock Obama. If you show
him Obama is really generous he'll just move on to something else to
criticize him for. These right wingers are all the same. They're
transparent as glass.
Hawke
Hawke
What's interesting to me is to see how much the arguments these people
made for how things would work came out the way they said it would. From
what I have seen they did a pretty damn bad job of predicting how things
would turn out. They had ideas of how things would be and how the things
they did were supposed to work but after a couple hundred years I think
very little of what they expected to happen turned out they way they
thought it would. Proving once again, that these guys were just men and
nothing more. They made lots of mistakes and lots of things turned out
exactly the opposite of what they predicted. Which is just one more
reason that the idea held by some conservatives on the supreme court,
"originalism", is as stupid as anything that has come down the pike in a
very long time.
Hawke
Hawke
From what I have seen of this bill nobody likes it, me included. That
usually means it's pretty good. Or it's really bad. The point is
something has to be done and no matter how some people like to hide the
truth, the only way we can do health care properly is to include
everyone and to take the power away from health insurance companies.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest between a company that wants
to make as much money from your as it can and you wanting to get good
health care as inexpensively as possible. It's an adversarial situation
and if they have the power they will make you pay a lot and give you a
little, which is what they are doing.
All you have to do is look at how health care is delivered in the other
industrial countries and every one of them has some kind of universal
system. That's only because it's the only way to get everyone care at
the lowest price. Everyone knows this. We can't get it done because the
lobbying power of the health care industry is so strong that what is
best for the country can't get passed into law. It's all about money and
power. The people aren't putting up the money and they don't have the
power so they are not getting the best system. The thing is this game
can't go on and we're going to crash and burn. Maybe that is what will
have to happen before we will make the necessary changes. This country
has a history of doing that. Look at slavery. It was outlawed all over
the world yet it was still going strong in the U.S. long after everyone
else abandoned it. We couldn't even get it changed politically so we did
it the worst possible way, war. We may have to have the same thing
happen except instead of war it'll be bankruptcy. What's maddening is
that universal health care is the only solution to our health care
problem. The only question is how long is it going to take before we
take the plunge?
Hawke
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> You don't get it, some of us would rather Congress do very little since
>>> everytime it 'gets
>>> something done' it is at the further expense of liberty.
>>
>>Yeah, I get it. Some of the people here would rather that Congress do
>>nothing until they have a mind to do something that will benefit THEM
>>directly. And they don't care how they do it, or what tricks they use to
>>subvert the way our government is set up and run.
>
> Ed, you just made a great arguement for how many that want National Health
> Care or the
> Public Option will do anything to get their way. They don't care who has
> to pay, how it
> affects others that do have health care, they just want government to give
> them something,
> and give it to them as close to free for them as possible.
>
Most of the people who want it recognize that it's the only way we're going
to solve our budget problems, in the long run. Most economists acknowledge
that there's no other way. Most people who don't know squat about the
numbers or the trends, and who already have insurance that someone else is
paying for (over 70% of the US population) don't want it.
That's what I mean when I say that they only want Congress to do something
when it will benefit them directly. And they don't know enough about the
economics of it to see beyond the end of their noses.
>
>>
>>The extreme example of this is the characters here, the Sons of Timothy
>>McVeigh, who want to threaten government officials at the point of a gun
>>until they do what their little cadre of freaks wants them to do.
>
> Now how did you leap to that crap?
That narrow, self-directed focus leads to a belief that most people think
like
they do, and that somehow the government has usurped its power. Then the
next step is to believe they have to "take back" the power, ignoring the
fact
that those representatives were elected by a majority to act in the general
interest, not necessarily the selfish interest of the individuals involved.
From there, it's just a series of small, stupid steps to "the great cull,"
and to
threatening government with guns.
We've seen a year's worth of it here. It's a case of adults reverting to
teenagers.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hned9s$ma9$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> rangerssuck wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
>>>>> When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
>>>>> Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Steve W.
>>>> For fuck's sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
>>>> you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."
>>>>
>>> If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
>>> However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
>>> considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
>>> charity. Same principle.
>>
>> What a ridiculous statement. He didn't "rob" it. He won it, and decided
>> where it would go. Unless you have some information to the contrary, it's
>> unlikely that he ever took possession of it.
>
> Ed you might want to take a reading comprehension course.
Gee, yeah, that's a good idea, Steve. Maybe I'll do that. d8-)
>
> Obama cannot legally take possession of the money. Period.
First, there is no reason to believe he took possession of the money. The
press release said nothing about it.
Second, it was awarded to him, so it's likely that he told the committee
what to do with it. Thus, it was donated.
Third, you're wrong that he couldn't take possession of the money. Congress
(with Democrat majorities in both houses) would have to approve, per Article
1, section 9 of the Constitution. The statute and GSA administrative rules
we've been talking about are for a pre-approval; they don't contradict the
relevant provision of the Constitution. Of course, they can't violate it,
under the law.
Fourth, you're assuming that the Nobel Prize would constitute a government
gift. As I've discussed before, that isn't entirely clear, and it's a legal
question that would have to be decided by a court, not by Congress.
David Kopel wrote a piece about this for The Volokh Conspiracy late last
year. He raises the same questions that I have, and says that the answers to
some of these questions are unknown. He does agree that the medal and other
decorations can be accepted, because Obama is the "head" of the department
in question, so it's his decision to make.
http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/can-obama-accept-the-nobel-prize-without-congressional-consent/
What Kopel doesn't address is what happens if Obama never actually receives
the money. That appears to be the case here. As John said, the lawyers
probably have covered that one, or the Republicans would be screaming for
impeachment as we speak.
Overall, you're making unwarranted assumptions; you're implying legal
conclusions that you're in no position to make; and you're weaving the
actual words of the press release together with your assumptions to spin up
a bunch of nonsense.
>
> The money would legally have to be transferred to the U.S, treasury for
> disposal per the law. This is all covered under the GSA regulations as I
> showed in my other post.
See above.
>
> As such the money now falls under the purview of Congress.
Not unless it's actually received by Obama. And that assumes that it's
legally a gift from a foreign government, which, from court precedents I've
looked for and which David Kopel comments upon, is not a decided legal
issue.
> Obama made the announcement about what HE wanted done with the money,
> when that choice is not his to make.
It was a gift to him. Whether he accepts it or not, there's little chance
the Nobel committee would deny his requests.
>
>
>> Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
>> towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
>> wrong.
>>
>> ``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
>> groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
>> Peace Prize.
>>
>> Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
>> nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
>> Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
>> to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
>> earthquake.
>>
>> The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
>> foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
>> Africa and Central Asia.''
>
> Now unless these words mean something different.
> "$1.4 million he received"
Don't try to hang it on definitions. What counts is what actually
*happened*.
> "He will give another $200,000"
>
> I read that as HE is giving away money that HE had no legal right to
> accept. That is a FAR cry from charity.
You don't know that. You're making more assumptions.
>
> Charity is reaching into your OWN wallet and giving YOUR money, or
> giving of YOUR time.
Thank you, Dr. Webster. What matters is what actually *happened*. What
account did the money go into? How do you know?
>
> Having it attributed to you that YOU are giving money to charity when
> the money can not legally be yours in the first place is the problem.
> What does the title of this post say?
It was his award. He's decided that it will be given to certain charities.
I'm not arguing about Iggy's wording or statements; I'm merely pointing out
that you've concocted an entire story based on assumptions of things that
you don't know.
>
>>
>>> Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
>>> stranger things have happened.
>>>
>
> The press release is NOT the problem. The problem is that in no way can
> this be claimed to be charity on his part.
Then complain to Iggy. You're complaining about what you think Obama *did*.
But you don't know what he did, unless you have information about how the
money changed hands. I haven't been able to find anything about that. Have
you?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Roger, for God's sake, READ ABOUT CLOTURE AND FILIBUSTER! They have the
votes to pass the bill (or they did, until they got saddled with trying to
get the House to approve the Senate version, but that's a consequence,
itself, of the damned cloture mess).
By asking that question, you're telling us that you don't understand how
Congress works. Find out. Then we can discuss this intelligently. As it is,
you're speculating from a foundation of ignorance.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. Find out what you're talking about.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Only in this sense: Many of them thought it wouldn't work. Jefferson wanted
the Constitution to be scrapped every 19 years, and re-written from scratch.
Franklin doubted we could "keep the republic." Hamilton was worried about it
from day one. Madison concocted elaborate theories about how all of the
political forces could be resolved, but expressed a realistic skepticism
about all of the pieces actually working as they were intended.
If you want to draw a conclusion about how their predictions worked out, the
most accurate one probably would be, "a lot better than they expected."
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
Yeah, things turned out way better than they expected but history has
shown they were not very good at predicting the future, which I don't
hold against them, by the way. If you look at most predictions they
turned out wrong. I think the founders were no different from anyone
else in that regard. They set this thing up, they had no real precedent
as to how it would work out, they were hoping for the best, but they had
no idea how it would go. Which is why we need to ignore the people like
Glenn Beck, judge Andrew Napolitano, and the others, who want to go back
and see if they can figure out what the founders wanted and then apply
it to today. That is pretty crazy, if you ask me. Things have progressed
so far and so fast from when the country was set up that hardly anything
they thought or did has any bearing on things today. The Constitution
may not be a "living" document but it sure is one that should be looked
at as a guide for how law should be applied now. Not like it's a holy
piece of scripture that we need to follow to the letter. Funny though
that the people in power in Washington don't have any trouble
disregarding it whenever it suits them while telling the public how much
it means to them.
Hawke
Wes
>
>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:DSdnn.72149$Jq1....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't get it, some of us would rather Congress do very little since
>>>> everytime it 'gets
>>>> something done' it is at the further expense of liberty.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I get it. Some of the people here would rather that Congress do
>>>nothing until they have a mind to do something that will benefit THEM
>>>directly. And they don't care how they do it, or what tricks they use to
>>>subvert the way our government is set up and run.
>>
>> Ed, you just made a great arguement for how many that want National Health
>> Care or the
>> Public Option will do anything to get their way. They don't care who has
>> to pay, how it
>> affects others that do have health care, they just want government to give
>> them something,
>> and give it to them as close to free for them as possible.
>>
>
>Most of the people who want it recognize that it's the only way we're going
>to solve our budget problems, in the long run.
Well, I'm thinking many just want it. Our budget problems come from we promised too much,
spent the excess collected and have policies that shove indigent health care off to the
intermediate payer, the insurance company, followed by the non group insured payer or the
group insured employeer who pushes it off the the employee.
Then there is the issue where as our current recession continues, many insurance customers
are dropping out, the indigents are rising and Medi-whatever is further tightening up on
payment.
There is a reason why insurance policy rates are going up. The insurance company is
paying the bills.
>Most economists acknowledge
>that there's no other way. Most people who don't know squat about the
>numbers or the trends, and who already have insurance that someone else is
>paying for (over 70% of the US population) don't want it.
Someone else is paying for mine. That corporation figures it into what they pay for my
services. It is part of my compensation. As far as who is paying that is an accounting
sleight of hand. I'm paying, it is part of my compensation. Same as SSI and Medicare
payments. Now tax treatment is another issue. Fringes like health insurace go back to
WWII to attract workers when there was wartime wage controls iirc.
>
>That's what I mean when I say that they only want Congress to do something
>when it will benefit them directly. And they don't know enough about the
>economics of it to see beyond the end of their noses.
So far, I see Congress hurting me. I think I'm grasping an idea of the economics.
>
>>
>>>
>>>The extreme example of this is the characters here, the Sons of Timothy
>>>McVeigh, who want to threaten government officials at the point of a gun
>>>until they do what their little cadre of freaks wants them to do.
>>
>> Now how did you leap to that crap?
>
>That narrow, self-directed focus leads to a belief that most people think
>like
>they do, and that somehow the government has usurped its power. Then the
>next step is to believe they have to "take back" the power, ignoring the
>fact
>that those representatives were elected by a majority to act in the general
>interest, not necessarily the selfish interest of the individuals involved.
>
>From there, it's just a series of small, stupid steps to "the great cull,"
>and to
>threatening government with guns.
Ed, I like Gunner. He tends to engage in hyperbole, I'm not into that. I do recognize
that an armed citizenship is a brake on government going too far or winking at other
groups that are non governmental doing wrong. Consider the Deacons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
>
>We've seen a year's worth of it here. It's a case of adults reverting to
>teenagers.
I've seen some corrupt deals being made.
Wes
RogerN
>
> "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in message
> news:-9qdnbXQx5HcwwDW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b9bd1c2$0$31262$607e...@cv.net...
>>>
>>> To me, there are few things sadder than sincere people who get twisted
>>> around the little finger of media pundits because they don't really know
>>> what's in the Constitution, or how Congress works.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>
>> If they already have the votes then what is the holdup?
>
> Roger, for God's sake, READ ABOUT CLOTURE AND FILIBUSTER! They have the
> votes to pass the bill (or they did, until they got saddled with trying to
> get the House to approve the Senate version, but that's a consequence,
> itself, of the damned cloture mess).
>
> By asking that question, you're telling us that you don't understand how
> Congress works. Find out. Then we can discuss this intelligently. As it
> is, you're speculating from a foundation of ignorance.
>
> Sorry, but that's the way it is. Find out what you're talking about.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Ok, for Cloture they need 60 votes, like I said, they don't have the votes
they need to cram the Planned Parenthood healthcare bill down out throats.
There are some of the Democrats that don't want the Planned Parenthood bill
and are voting no, at least until they get bribed or bought out. The
American people have said no by voting in a Republican that would end their
filibuster proof majority. Few want the Planned Parenthood plan that Obama
is the sock puppet for.
Planned Parenthood is on their website stating what is acceptable and
unacceptable in their healthcare bill and Obama has them come to the White
House so they can instruct him.
RogerN
Ed Huntress
Roger, they need 51 votes to pass the bill. The cloture rule is a Senate
rule for debate that keeps getting changed to suit the mood of the Senators
in office at the time. It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution, or with
the majority needed to pass a bill.
There are a lot of rules in the Senate. They can invoke one or the other for
political reasons, but they can't get around the 51 vote majority needed to
pass a bill.
> There are some of the Democrats that don't want the Planned Parenthood
> bill and are voting no, at least until they get bribed or bought out. The
> American people have said no by voting in a Republican that would end
> their filibuster proof majority. Few want the Planned Parenthood plan
> that Obama is the sock puppet for.
That wasn't the American people. That was the citizens of Massachusetts,
which most conservatives don't actually consider to be part of America. <g>
And they voted about a lot of things. They already have "socialized"
medicine in Massachusetts, remember? Why would they care about anyone else,
after all?
>
> Planned Parenthood is on their website stating what is acceptable and
> unacceptable in their healthcare bill and Obama has them come to the White
> House so they can instruct him.
So? They have a voice, too.
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
And their voice cries out, we make a fortune killing babies! Give us more!
more! more!
RogerN
Hawke
You're a pretty naive guy and not well informed about how the government
works either. You demonstrate this by your thinking you are seeing
something new and different in how the health care bill is taking shape.
I have news for you. This is how legislation works in this country. Why
do you think they refer to it as "sausage making"? You really think the
things going on are so much different from the things that the
republicans did when they were in the majority? They used
reconcilliation on numerous occasions to get things passed against the
will of the Democrats. They did the same kind of deals and payoffs and
arm twisting to get their legislation passed. LBJ is legendary for the
lengths he went through to make congressmen vote for his legislation.
This process is no worse than it has been in the past. In fact, it's the
same as it was in the past. The difference is that you didn't know how
it really works and because the republicans are saying it's oh so
terrible now you think it really is. Well, it's not. This is just what
it takes to get a bill passed when the opposition against it is digging
in their heels. You need to stop believing everything you hear coming
out of the mouths of republicans. It's all either a gross exaggeration
or else an outright lie. They happen to be working for the insurance
industry. Try to keep that in mind when you hear republicans whining
about how awful the Democrats are. They would do exactly the same thing
in their place.
Hawke
RBnDFW
Pelosi begs to differ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html
Ed Huntress
There are people who want it for economic reasons, because we know that the
medical industry in the US is f***ed and we know it's damaging the country
in ways that aren't always apparent on the surface or in the short run.
That's me. That's also John Carroll, and Unka' George, and a few others.
As for promising too much, we actually promise very little in medical care,
except for emergency care en extremis, and the results show it. We have an
extremely good elite segment and the rest is f***ed.
It is not the insurance companies that pay for it. We pay for it, and a lot
of it is in the form of taxes. Because the system is such a mess, it costs
us a lot more than it should. We pay 50% per capita for healthcare than
almost all other developed countries -- for nothing much in terms of overall
results.
Regarding indigent care, we pay for it in taxes and increased medical costs.
We pay a lot more for it than we should, because the system is f***ed. Too
much of it goes through the emergency care segment.
The insurance companies care nothing about this. As business people, there's
no reason they should care. They make FAR more money by collecting their
percentage from rising costs than they ever could from increasing their base
of insured lives. (They call us "lives.")
Also regarding indigent care, there is no real choice but to pay for them,
but also to figure out how to do it a lot more efficiently than by running
them through hospital ERs.
>
> Then there is the issue where as our current recession continues, many
> insurance customers
> are dropping out, the indigents are rising and Medi-whatever is further
> tightening up on
> payment.
>
> There is a reason why insurance policy rates are going up. The insurance
> company is
> paying the bills.
Duh... <g> And they mark those bills up with their usual percentage and pass
them on to us. As long as costs keep rising, they keep making more money.
They have no interest in changing anything.
>
>
>>Most economists acknowledge
>>that there's no other way. Most people who don't know squat about the
>>numbers or the trends, and who already have insurance that someone else is
>>paying for (over 70% of the US population) don't want it.
>
> Someone else is paying for mine. That corporation figures it into what
> they pay for my
> services. It is part of my compensation. As far as who is paying that is
> an accounting
> sleight of hand. I'm paying, it is part of my compensation. Same as SSI
> and Medicare
> payments. Now tax treatment is another issue. Fringes like health
> insurace go back to
> WWII to attract workers when there was wartime wage controls iirc.
All correct, but once it's out of sight, it's out of mind. People whose
insurance is "paid" by their employers don't want anything to change. Show
them the accounting sheets that show they *might* be paid more if they paid
for their own insurance directly, and their eyes glaze over. Show them that
the final result must be a more efficient system, or we're all going broke,
and they go TILT and turn back to the baseball game. Show them that there is
no way to configure private insurance to produce effective, cost-cutting
competition, except through a vice-grip of regulations and controls, and
they reflexively shout "socialism." Soon, they'll begin drooling when they
hear the word, like Pavlov's dogs.
>
>
>>
>>That's what I mean when I say that they only want Congress to do something
>>when it will benefit them directly. And they don't know enough about the
>>economics of it to see beyond the end of their noses.
>
> So far, I see Congress hurting me. I think I'm grasping an idea of the
> economics.
Work backwards from $2.4 trillion. That's what healthcare costs us. Look at
how that clobbers our real growth, and GDP.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The extreme example of this is the characters here, the Sons of Timothy
>>>>McVeigh, who want to threaten government officials at the point of a gun
>>>>until they do what their little cadre of freaks wants them to do.
>>>
>>> Now how did you leap to that crap?
>>
>>That narrow, self-directed focus leads to a belief that most people think
>>like
>>they do, and that somehow the government has usurped its power. Then the
>>next step is to believe they have to "take back" the power, ignoring the
>>fact
>>that those representatives were elected by a majority to act in the
>>general
>>interest, not necessarily the selfish interest of the individuals
>>involved.
>>
>>From there, it's just a series of small, stupid steps to "the great cull,"
>>and to
>>threatening government with guns.
>
> Ed, I like Gunner. He tends to engage in hyperbole, I'm not into that. I
> do recognize
> that an armed citizenship is a brake on government going too far or
> winking at other
> groups that are non governmental doing wrong. Consider the Deacons.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
The Deacons were primarily engaged in civil defense against criminal
activity by the KKK and other white organizations. Their confrontations with
police were few. It was not a "brake" on government in any meaningful sense
of the word. It was, at most, a brake on illegal activity by other citizens.
As for the idea that armed citizens provide any influence by being an actual
physical threat to government, the entire idea is nonsensical. The positive
effect of gun ownership on our country is a purely symbolic one -- a B-movie
script that keeps reinforcing a cultural myth. The myth keeps alive the idea
that this is a government of, by, and for the people. It's one of those
largely positive myths that defines our country but it is still a symbolic
one. To believe otherwise is to be living in a fantasy world that never was.
As for what really was, it was George Washington marching 16,000 federalized
militiamen into western PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. And as for the
role of armed action by groups of citizens, to the founders, Jefferson
expressed it well in his "Tree of Liberty" letter:
"The people cannot be all, & always well informed...Let them take arms. The
remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
Ed Huntress
Your hobby horse needs a retread, Roger. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
John Martin
27323.invalid> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the example.
If you really want to get a reading of the man's generous nature, I'd
suggest you review his charitable contributions before he began
running for President. Politicians tend to do strange things when
they come under the spotlight. The real measure of a man's character
is what he does when he thinks no one is watching.
If you'd done your homework, you'd have found Obama to be far from
generous. Unless you compare him to Joe Biden Joe Biden, perhaps. If
you're looking for cheap, it's hard to beat old Joe Joe.
Now, I'm sure he has some good qualities - but generosity isn't among
them.
John Martin
Ignoramus25445
> On Mar 14, 2:02?pm, Ignoramus27323 <ignoramus27...@NOSPAM.
You are welcome.
> If you really want to get a reading of the man's generous nature,
> I'd suggest you review his charitable contributions before he began
> running for President. Politicians tend to do strange things when
> they come under the spotlight. The real measure of a man's
> character is what he does when he thinks no one is watching.
While it is true, remember that no one is obligated to participate in
any charities. It is my personal opinion that my job number one is to
build a family nest egg so that we and my children can be secure from
life's emergencies. I think that giving 10% of income as tithing, then
sitting on welfare, ad infinitum, is more reckless than it is
generous.
Only when I am truly able I would participate in charitable activities
more fully. I used to not make any charitable contributions at all,
besides an occasional gift to the NRA foundation. But as I am getting
older and as we have built up some savings, I personally find myself
contributing more as I feel more able to do so.
Warren Buffett, by the way, did the same thing, he never contributed
to anything, as long as he felt that he would have more available
after he compounds his wealth.
Perhaps, Barack Obama follows the same pattern and built up the
net worth that he has, and now that he has money in excess of his
needs, he is giving more to the causes that he likes. I woul dnot
doubt that being in the spotlight, increases somewhat his
contributions. This is human nature and is rational behavior. I would
not want to have an irrational president, would you?
> If you'd done your homework, you'd have found Obama to be far from
> generous. Unless you compare him to Joe Biden Joe Biden, perhaps. If
> you're looking for cheap, it's hard to beat old Joe Joe.
>
> Now, I'm sure he has some good qualities - but generosity isn't among
> them.
Giving 1% of income as charitable gifts, is very generous, as far as I
am concerned.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
i
Wes
>You're a pretty naive guy and not well informed about how the government
>works either. You demonstrate this by your thinking you are seeing
>something new and different in how the health care bill is taking shape.
>I have news for you. This is how legislation works in this country. Why
>do you think they refer to it as "sausage making"? You really think the
>things going on are so much different from the things that the
>republicans did when they were in the majority?
I am not naive about how deals get cut. I remember not too long ago the nuclear option
and the gang of 14 on supreme court nominations. I did not support the nuclear option
since we all know you may be on top in politics but soon you will be on bottom.
Remember the line item veto where Congress tried to give the President a freer hand at
trimming the budget? President Clinton would have been the first President to get to use
it and he wasn't a Republican.
The Republicans got critisided for holding the Medicare vote open for 3 hours.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302342.html
Five hours for Sherrod Brown
>They used
>reconcilliation on numerous occasions to get things passed against the
>will of the Democrats. They did the same kind of deals and payoffs and
>arm twisting to get their legislation passed. LBJ is legendary for the
>lengths he went through to make congressmen vote for his legislation.
>This process is no worse than it has been in the past. In fact, it's the
>same as it was in the past. The difference is that you didn't know how
>it really works and because the republicans are saying it's oh so
>terrible now you think it really is. Well, it's not. This is just what
>it takes to get a bill passed when the opposition against it is digging
>in their heels. You need to stop believing everything you hear coming
>out of the mouths of republicans. It's all either a gross exaggeration
>or else an outright lie. They happen to be working for the insurance
>industry. Try to keep that in mind when you hear republicans whining
>about how awful the Democrats are. They would do exactly the same thing
>in their place.
I'm going to disagree with you. The dems are taking congress to places it hasn't been
before ensuring the race down hill will continue.
Wes
Ed Huntress
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hno79d$bqo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Another game of rules; one game provokes another game. That's what happens
when the filibuster games get started:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/passing-legislation-without-voting-on-it/?hp
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus25445" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25445.invalid> wrote in message
news:vfGdnduyWo6IUwLW...@giganews.com...
I don't agree that it's generous, but I do agree that you're right about how
many people would judge it. And that's why "voluntary giving" is not a
substitute, and can never be a substitute, for the various safety-net
features of ALL developed societies (with the US having by far the weakest
of them), that require government programs.
Those who think otherwise are living in a cloud of delusion about human
nature, and about what it takes to run an advanced economy and a civilized
society.
--
Ed Huntress
RBnDFW
Those earlier examples were for non-controversial bills.
This time it's a major expansion of government, and clearly against the
will of the majority of U.S. citizens.
Ed Huntress
We don't elect them to vote by the polls. Obama and many Dems were elected
on a promise of reforming health care. Obama intends to keep his promise if
he can; acutely aware of the numbers, he knows it's necessary, even if the
Republicans have managed to obscure the facts to many people.
That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct
democracy.
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
>
>>>
>>> Another game of rules; one game provokes another game. That's what
>>> happens when the filibuster games get started:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Those earlier examples were for non-controversial bills.
>> This time it's a major expansion of government, and clearly against the
>> will of the majority of U.S. citizens.
>
> We don't elect them to vote by the polls. Obama and many Dems were elected
> on a promise of reforming health care. Obama intends to keep his promise
> if he can; acutely aware of the numbers, he knows it's necessary, even if
> the Republicans have managed to obscure the facts to many people.
>
> That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct
> democracy.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
LOL. (in 48 point font)
b.w.
(all the right wingers are constantly irritatingly reminding everyone
whenever they say we live in a democracy "WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!!" as a way
of reinforcing their right wing point of view. they don't like it when the
other party is in charge.)
John R. Carroll
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Zd7on.102692$Ye4....@newsfe11.iad...
http://blog.american.com/?p=11467
JC
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Zd7on.102692$Ye4....@newsfe11.iad...
>
I know. I've had that argument with them here several times. That's why I
said it. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
RBnDFW
No, but the politicians live and die by them. they look at polling
numbers every day over breakfast. I suspect gastric distress is common
for many of them.
> Obama and many Dems were elected
> on a promise of reforming health care.
Sort of. He promised a lot of things. Transparency was high on the list
up until January 2009. Reducing the influence of lobbyists, ditto. His
fulfillment record first year was pretty much nada.
I think we all agree that health insurance reform is badly needed
here. We disagree on the form it would take.
Apparently most Americans did not realize we would be getting a govt
takeover of the health care industry.
Obama intends to keep his promise if
> he can; acutely aware of the numbers, he knows it's necessary, even if the
> Republicans have managed to obscure the facts to many people.
What about all those other promises? Pretty selective, he is.
At this point, a lot of Americans are wondering just what his intentions
are.
> That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct
> democracy.
In theory at least. There are a lot of elected officials that have
publicly stated they would support Obamacare even though their own
constituency was virulently opposed to it. I wonder what part of
"representative" they do not understand? Whichever way it goes, those
people need to get sent home come November.
Ed Huntress
Which is why it's remarkable that the Dems may get it through. The pundits
are saying the effect on elections could go either way, that it will depend
on the jobs picture more than anything.
>
>> Obama and many Dems were elected on a promise of reforming health care.
>
> Sort of. He promised a lot of things. Transparency was high on the list up
> until January 2009. Reducing the influence of lobbyists, ditto. His
> fulfillment record first year was pretty much nada.
> I think we all agree that health insurance reform is badly needed here.
> We disagree on the form it would take.
> Apparently most Americans did not realize we would be getting a govt
> takeover of the health care industry.
I would disagree sharply with that conclusion. What we'd get is a sort of
tight, but half-assed regulation of the health care INSURANCE industry.
They're the ones who are now dictating what health care half the people in
the country now get. They're the ones with the death panels. I've even met
with some. They're called Medical Directors in the insurance industry.
>
> Obama intends to keep his promise if
>> he can; acutely aware of the numbers, he knows it's necessary, even if
>> the Republicans have managed to obscure the facts to many people.
>
> What about all those other promises? Pretty selective, he is.
> At this point, a lot of Americans are wondering just what his intentions
> are.
It may be one thing at a time. Or it may be one thing.
>
>> That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct
>> democracy.
>
> In theory at least. There are a lot of elected officials that have
> publicly stated they would support Obamacare even though their own
> constituency was virulently opposed to it. I wonder what part of
> "representative" they do not understand?
See the Federalist papers. They had it right. The whole principle of
representative democracy, which most of the Founders called republican
government, is that we elect the people who will best represent our
interests -- not, as the Founders put it, our ill-informed passions.
> Whichever way it goes, those people need to get sent home come November.
I'm sure that many will. Again, jobs will be the big determinant.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus15323
they will not support broadening of insurance coverage".
There is something that needs to not be forgotten, which is that most
people who have insurance (except seniors), at some point will not
have it, due to job loss, ill health, or having a legally bad
policy. And when they do not have it, they will wish they did have a
"public option".
I have great health insurance now, but if, God forbid, things go badly
in my life, I will not have it when I will need it. I try not to
forget that.
If Obama administration stressed that point, it would get a lot more
support for broadening of insurance coverage.
i
John Martin
25445.invalid> wrote:
Obama may be very generous as far as you are concerned, Iggy, but most
"rational" people - regardless of their ideological leanings - would
not regard him that way after looking at the same facts you did. His
charitable giving, prior to his Presidential run, was well below the
average for those in his income bracket. Yes, he has been more
generous than Joe Joe, but that's not hard to do.
Do you really know people who have given 10% of their income to
charity and then relied on welfare when their money ran out? I'd
agree with you that they were, if not reckless, at least foolish. I
don't know anyone that has done that, though.
You seem to be saying that increasing his giving when he came into the
public eye was simply a rational move to bolster his popularity.
Perhaps it was. Obviously, some people fell for it. I've never
thought Obama irrational. My own preference, however, would be for
honesty. I'd rather have someone tell me something I didn't want to
hear than lie to me, and I'd respect him for that. I might even vote
for him. With Obama, I've been disappointed.
John Martin
RBnDFW
You are confusing health care and health insurance.
My sister is a 40-something deadbeat, no job, not looking, never has
held a decent job for any length of time. Lives with Mom all her life.
In December she had surgery for a torn rotator cup.
Cost to her? Nothing.
County hospital. She gets plenty of good treatment there, prescription
drugs for a chronic illness, as well as allergy meds.
No cost to her. My property taxes pay for it.
This is available nearly everywhere in the country. The indigent have
health care, what do they need with health insurance?
Of course, if the health insurance lobby has a vested interest in your
political future, then we absolutely must have 100% coverage, not
negotiable.
John R. Carroll
> Ignoramus15323 wrote:
>> There are pundits that say "since most people have health insurance,
>> they will not support broadening of insurance coverage".
>>
>> There is something that needs to not be forgotten, which is that most
>> people who have insurance (except seniors), at some point will not
>> have it, due to job loss, ill health, or having a legally bad
>> policy. And when they do not have it, they will wish they did have a
>> "public option".
>>
>> I have great health insurance now, but if, God forbid, things go badly
>> in my life, I will not have it when I will need it. I try not to
>> forget that. If Obama administration stressed that point, it would get a
>> lot more
>> support for broadening of insurance coverage.
>
> You are confusing health care and health insurance.
>
> My sister is a 40-something deadbeat, no job, not looking, never has held
> a decent job for any length of time. Lives with Mom all her life.
> In December she had surgery for a torn rotator cup.
> Cost to her? Nothing.
> County hospital. She gets plenty of good treatment there, prescription
> drugs for a chronic illness, as well as allergy meds.
> No cost to her. My property taxes pay for it.
If you are presenting the facts correctly, she's covered by whatever her
State calls MediCal - that's what is is in CA.
The federal portion is paid directly to the State through Medicare/Medicaid,
neither of which are funded with property tax money.
JC
Wes
>If you are presenting the facts correctly, she's covered by whatever her
>State calls MediCal - that's what is is in CA.
>The federal portion is paid directly to the State through Medicare/Medicaid,
>neither of which are funded with property tax money.
What is the state portion?
Wes
John R. Carroll
It varies by state but about 12.5 percent.
The real problem, or one of them biggest, is the way the huge pool of
uninsured recieve treatment.
It isn't Medicaid per se.
There is a lot of innovation by regional medical centers right now in areas
that have large numbers of uninsured people.
The big players in the San Diego area, for example, are funding treatment
clinics. What you pay at one of those clinics depends on a number of factors
but it's very low. The hospitals give directly and also raise money in order
to keep the case load on their emergency rooms down and at a reasonable
cost. It works and something like this is part of the bill now before
Congress.
JC
Wes
>> What is the state portion?
>>
>
>It varies by state but about 12.5 percent.
>The real problem, or one of them biggest, is the way the huge pool of
>uninsured recieve treatment.
>It isn't Medicaid per se.
>
Thanks John. I did a bit of googling before I saw your response. Before I actually
looked, I'd have thought state portion was much higher. I learned something tonight.
>There is a lot of innovation by regional medical centers right now in areas
>that have large numbers of uninsured people.
>The big players in the San Diego area, for example, are funding treatment
>clinics. What you pay at one of those clinics depends on a number of factors
>but it's very low. The hospitals give directly and also raise money in order
>to keep the case load on their emergency rooms down and at a reasonable
>cost. It works and something like this is part of the bill now before
>Congress.
Medical care seems to have a non-linear cost vs results relationship.
Some insulin, syringes, and piss strips to check for sugar is fairly cheap and can ward
off having to deal with a going blind diabetic in crisis. I'm using that example because
I kept my dog alive for 16 extra months using fairly inexpensive medicine comprising the
above.
A certain minimal level of care that isn't coming from the emergincy room could save a lot
of money becase at the end, those that can pay, pay for all of it.
The Chips program is one, that while I hate further expansion of government, is a bit hard
for me to be against on the moral level. After all, the kids can't pick their parents.
On another note, but somehow related, part of winning the hearts and minds of every place
we have had our military engaged in a conflict is the Corpsman treating the locals. A lot
of that is pretty inexpensive medicine also that goes a long way. In some cases it helps
to make up for colateral damage that we try to avoid at a huge cost.
Getting back to current events, I still think sweeping change was the wrong way to go. Bit
by bit change, incrementalism, would have been a better plan over the long run.
Wes
Hawke
The only reason you are saying that is because that is what the
republican opposition is saying. What's going on is both sides are
fighting with everything they have at their disposal. There is no middle
ground on this issue. One side wins and the other loses. It's an all out
battle. Unfortunately, it's one the republicans can't win. The Democrats
have the advantage of being in the majority, which gives them the power
to use all kinds of parliamentary tricks to get what they want. It's the
same no matter who is in power. The republicans have filibustered over
110 times this congress. That's a doubling of the most ever used in
congress and it's being used on things never filibustered before. So
this works both ways. The fact is the Democrats have the majorities in
both houses and the white house. That is supposed to mean something,
specifically that the people gave the Democrats the right and power to
implement their programs and it's the minority republicans who are
thwarting the will of the people. It's the republicans who are trying to
run things despite being the party in the minority. In my book they are
just sore losers. They had the power for eight years and did what they
wanted. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they won't play fair. So
if they get burned by the Democrats, so be it. They have the right to
pass the legislation they were elected to pass.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
"And one more thing: employment-based health insurance, which is already
regulated in a way that mostly prevents this kind of abuse, is unraveling.
Less than half of workers at small businesses were covered last year, down
from 58 percent a decade ago. This means that in the absence of reform, an
ever-growing number of Americans will be at the mercy of the likes of
Assurant Health."
"So what's the answer? Americans overwhelmingly favor guaranteeing coverage
to those with pre-existing conditions - but you can't do that without
pursuing broad-based reform. To make insurance affordable, you have to keep
currently healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that
everyone or almost everyone buy coverage. You can't do that without
financial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can pay the premiums.
So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical
discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies."
"Or to put it another way, you end up with something like the health care
plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts in 2006, and the very similar
plan the House either will or won't pass in the next few days. Comprehensive
reform is the only way forward."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html
I don't know what makes you think the bill that's about to become law isn't
just the beginning Wes. We'll certainly see a lot more over the next few
years and you shouldn't be surprised to see a public option and then single
payer at some point in the future.
JC
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
>Getting back to current events, I still think sweeping change was the wrong way to go. Bit
>by bit change, incrementalism, would have been a better plan over the long run.
Reverting to the community clinic model would take a helluva lot of
the stress off doctors and emergency rooms. Those have practically
disappeared in my lifetime. I remember the $5 doctor visits when I
was a sick post-teen, for flu/STD checks/her Pill/stitches.
Here's what they have nowadays in Vista, CA.
http://fwd4.me/IKW complete with marble-stepped 25' wide spiral
stairway to the second level.
--
Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)
--
John R. Carroll
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
news:3u47q5dbb6mb6l606...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:57:29 -0500, the infamous Wes
> <clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>Getting back to current events, I still think sweeping change was the
>>wrong way to go. Bit
>>by bit change, incrementalism, would have been a better plan over the long
>>run.
>
> Reverting to the community clinic model would take a helluva lot of
> the stress off doctors and emergency rooms. Those have practically
> disappeared in my lifetime. I remember the $5 doctor visits when I
> was a sick post-teen, for flu/STD checks/her Pill/stitches.
>
> Here's what they have nowadays in Vista, CA.
> http://fwd4.me/IKW complete with marble-stepped 25' wide spiral
> stairway to the second level.
You ought to get out more Larry.
http://www.vistacommunityclinic.org/Locations.html
You'd look less the fool.
JC
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>F. George McDuffee wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:42:38 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
>>> twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
>>> posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy <G>
>> <snip>
>>
>> My best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. Naps are
>> good.
>>
>>
>> Unka George (George McDuffee)
>> ..............................
>> The past is a foreign country;
>> they do things differently there.
>> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>> The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
>
>As long as you wake up....
Mr Carroll didnt have a lot of body weight to begin with. I hope and
pray he does well and recovers fully.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Hawke
>> Reverting to the community clinic model would take a helluva lot of
>> the stress off doctors and emergency rooms. Those have practically
>> disappeared in my lifetime. I remember the $5 doctor visits when I
>> was a sick post-teen, for flu/STD checks/her Pill/stitches.
>>
>> Here's what they have nowadays in Vista, CA.
>> http://fwd4.me/IKW complete with marble-stepped 25' wide spiral
>> stairway to the second level.
>
> You ought to get out more Larry.
> http://www.vistacommunityclinic.org/Locations.html
>
> You'd look less the fool.
>
> JC
I'm afraid that getting out wouldn't be of much help to him in that dept.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ho0hm6$a0q$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
I've seen few people that were as anxious for some sort of revolution but a
lot that were his sort of coward when it came to putting his money where his
mouth is. For all of his bluster, he'd probably break down and cry like a
baby for his mommy were he ever actually between a rock and a hard place.
Anyway, The clinic network in Vista will treat uninsured and unemployed
people for a flat $30.00, at least to the extent that they are able.
That is actually quite a lot of procedures as the clinics are very well
equiped and funded by private donations and funds from both Tri Cities
Hospital and Scripps Memorial. I think a lot of the doctors are either on
staff or have priveledges at one or the other of the hospitals.
JC
Hawke
That just goes to show you what can be done to provide health care for
people without it costing a fortune even the most minor procedures. It's
clearly time to change what we have been doing. Looks like it is finally
going to happen this weekend too, and the republicans are just sick I
tell you, just sick, at the prospect of the current system coming to an
end. I, on the other hand, am beaming.
Hawke