Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I believe that the Constitution says that the budget will originate in the House of Representatives and be approved by the Senate and signed into Law by the President. I believe that what is happening is actually the way things work. The Senate does not start the budget process nor does the President. They may submit suggestions to the House but the House will start the budget process. So the Senate not having voted on any bill brought up by the House is derelict in there duties. If they voted on the bills by the House then the Senate would be doing it's job. So who is not doing their job?

If I may, who gave King Obama the the right to change bankruptcy laws to favor his favorite cronies?

"

 

 

 


By Tom Hals

Jan 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. bankruptcy judge could soon rule on whether the 2009 government-led restructuring of General Motors Co improperly favored hedge funds, and an adverse ruling could cost the automaker nearly $1 billion.

Judge Robert Gerber must decide whether a "lock-up agreement" in the restructuring sent $367 million to a group of hedge fund noteholders at the expense of other creditors.

A trust representing unsecured creditors has sued to undo the lock-up agreement, arguing that it was a last-minute deal secretly folded into GM's bankruptcy to ensure the hedge funds' support.

After the automaker, or "Old GM," filed for bankruptcy in 2009, its best assets were sold to the new General Motors Co . The remainder of the company was liquidated for the benefit of creditors.

While the hedge funds, which hold notes with about $1 billion in face value, received the $367 million under the lock-up agreement, unsecured creditors received just pennies on the dollar. The hedge funds and other investors in the notes also received a claim against "Old GM" for $2.67 billion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...wsuit_n_2404875.html

 

And who gave the nekkid emperor the right to change the very law most people ascribe his name without congressional approval?

"

1) Has Congress given Treasury the authority to waive the penalties? The answer is no. The employer-mandate penalties unequivocally take effect on January 1, 2014, and the PPACA gives the Treasury secretary no authority to postpone their imposition.

Every element of the employer mandate demonstrates that it takes effect in 2014.

  • If any worker at a firm with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees receives a tax credit through a health insurance “exchange,” then “there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment.” Those tax credits become available on January 1, 2014. Thus that is also the date on which the penalties take effect.
  • The statute specifies penalty amounts that apply specifically in 2014, and provides that those penalties shall be adjusted for inflation in years after 2014.
  • The section creating the employer mandate even contains an effective date: “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

The statute gives the Treasury secretary the authority to collect these penalties “on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary may prescribe.” It does not allow the secretary to waive the imposition of such penalties, except in one circumstance: Section 1332 authorizes the Treasury secretary to waive the employer mandate, but only as part of a state-specific waiver, and only if the state enacts a law that would provide equally comprehensive health insurance to as many residents, and only if that law would impose no additional cost to the federal government, and only if there is a “meaningful level of public input” over the waiver and its approval, and even then not until 2017. In other words, Congress spoke to the question of whether and when the executive should be able to waive the employer mandate, and Congress clearly did not want the administration to waive it unless certain specified conditions were met.

Nevertheless, Treasury claims it has the authority to waive those penalties without following Congress’ instructions: “[T]he employer shared responsibility payments…will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015.”

2) Has Congress given Treasury the authority to waive the reporting requirement? Again, the answer is no.

The PPACA added two sections to the Internal Revenue Code (sections 6055 & 6056) that require employers to report certain information on their health benefits and the workers who enroll in that coverage, in order to help the IRS determine whether those workers are eligible for tax credits and whether the employer is subject to penalties. Again, the statute is clear: those reporting requirements take effect in “calendar years beginning after 2013” and “periods beginning after December 31, 2013.” The statute contains no language authorizing Treasury to waive those requirements."

http://www.cato.org/blog/yes-d...oyer-mandate-illegal

bulldog, The Senate has said they would pass a budget. The very one that the Republican house has put forward. The Senate has agreed to huge cuts in the budget proposed by Republicans. They were willing to compromise on many things. However Republicans have added this rider about the ACA. That has nothing to do with the budget it is only being used by Republicans to repeal the ACA. They will not send them a clean bill. The Senate is willing to focus on the budget but they refuse (and rightly so) to sign a budget with unrelated amendments. Especially when it involves delaying a law that passed not only Congress but the Supreme Court as well.

 

As you can see the ACA (Obamacare) is not affected by this shutdown. It is not dependent on this budget to pass. It has already been funded. Republicans are costing us millions of dollars a day with this shutdown and families are suffering and are going to be struggling to pay their bills because the Republican house is playing political games.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Obama's willing to negotiate with a murderous tyrant like Putin and a terrorist sponsoring government like Iran, but not the Republicans.  Kind of says it all.

Have you considered that a "murderous tyrant like Putin" and a "terrorist sponsoring government like Iran" are more willing to negotiate with than Boner and his bunch ?

Maybe Obama is not the problem here.

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

I believe that the Constitution says that the budget will originate in the House of Representatives and be approved by the Senate and signed into Law by the President. I believe that what is happening is actually the way things work. The Senate does not start the budget process nor does the President. They may submit suggestions to the House but the House will start the budget process. So the Senate not having voted on any bill brought up by the House is derelict in there duties. If they voted on the bills by the House then the Senate would be doing it's job. So who is not doing their job?

Well, you are right, However the only budget that the House has sent to the Senate was the Ryan budget which would pretty much end what's left of the New Deal, and that is not acceptable to anyone but the Koch sponsored teabaggers  in Congress.
It should be assumed that any budget produced would be a sensible one.

The Senate will not pass, nor would the President sign a bill that effectively ended  Medicare, Medicaid, and started chipping away a Social Security, not to mention all the other cuts.
It was not a serious bill, just a Koch Brothers wet dream.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Obama's willing to negotiate with a murderous tyrant like Putin and a terrorist sponsoring government like Iran, but not the Republicans.  Kind of says it all.

Have you considered that a "murderous tyrant like Putin" and a "terrorist sponsoring government like Iran" are more willing to negotiate with than Boner and his bunch ?

Maybe Obama is not the problem here.

It's called "Punkin' the inexperienced community organizer"...

Putin and Iran ain't no "Chicago Play ahs"...

 

 

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

I would like to read the bill you mentioned as having been passed by the House containing all those programs that will be shutdown or effected. Please provide a reference so I can view it and either agree or disagree with you.

===========

Well, just feel free to Google the 2013 House Budget bill.

You may be amazed at just how easy Google has made finding things yourself.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Obama's willing to negotiate with a murderous tyrant like Putin and a terrorist sponsoring government like Iran, but not the Republicans.  Kind of says it all.

Have you considered that a "murderous tyrant like Putin" and a "terrorist sponsoring government like Iran" are more willing to negotiate with than Boner and his bunch ?

Maybe Obama is not the problem here.

____________________________________________________

bo has already stated he wouldn’t negotiate with the Republicans. The right is willing to talk, your community clown won’t even consider it.

 

bo IS the problem here.

 

You have always ignored the facts.

So QD are you going to act so outraged when Medicare stops paying for cancer screening for old folks or not pay for treatment that will check to see if the cancer has come back, or pay for Dr visits for purposes of maintaining health? If so, then you had better start sounding off because it is happening now with the Obamacare in force. I know because it is happening to me. I wonder if you are old enough to get Medicare so you will see the poor way they are treating seniors these days. All in the name of Affordable Health care. Don't plan on living past 72, expect Medicare to cover your medical needs or leave your family anything beyond a memory. 

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

I believe the last bill sent to the Senate was to delay the mandatory purchase of insurance for one year, the same delay Obama gave big business AND to make the Congress take part in the Affordable Heath Care act. So you do not believe that the Senate should approve that rider or amendment on the bill? Can you say why?

I think QD missed it Bulldog -  you said:

delay the mandatory purchase of insurance for one year

 

The exchanges would still be open for those who want to participate, it just wouldn't be mandatory to participate.

 

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

My argument all along has been to relieve the burden of insurance off employers. This makes sense in that employees will have a full year to realize that they don’t have to depend on employers to provide health insurance therefore freeing up manufactures to be well employed in making the quality product.

But obamacare doesn't 'relieve the burden of insurance off employers.'  In fact, it requires them to provide insurance In many cases.  

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

if congress is sworn to uphold the constitution/laws of the land, don't you think they should do their job? are the republicans now "ok" with paying someone who isn't doing what they swore to do, when elected?

_______________________________________________________

However, there is nothing in the constitution that requires Congress to fund a law, if they find there are negative consequences.

 

Now, Crash, do you believe the president should perform his constitutional duties?  And, what should be the consequences if he does not?

 

Obama delayed the implementation of the necessity for large businesses to provide insurance for their employees for one year.  Neither, in the Obamacare act, nor in the constitution, is there provision for the president to ignore enforcement of a law. 

 

Similarly, Obama ordered ICE to not deport illegal aliens brought into the nation, when very young,  In this case, he ordered law enforcement to ignore the law, not just refused to implement a law.

 

Does the president's unconstitutional policies justify impeachment and immediate prosecution?  Or, should prosecution be delayed until he steps down from office? 

 

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

cap one can buy insurance without involvement by an employer.

Cap is right law requires employers to provide insurance if employing 50 or more.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2...uth-company-benefits

You do know that was in the law right?

 

========================

Well, employers should have been providing insurance for their employees all along.

However, I agree with QD  (and W Bush for that matter) that people should own their insurance policies so they won't feel like they have to work at a certain company just for their insurance.

In fact, I used to know a lot of people who would retire, except they need the health insurance and are not yet old enough for Medicare.
Possibly, Obamacare may allow those people to retire early, thereby opening up a lot of jobs and taking some people off the unemployed rolls. Just thinkin' here.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

cap one can buy insurance without involvement by an employer.

Cap is right law requires employers to provide insurance if employing 50 or more.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2...uth-company-benefits

You do know that was in the law right?

 

========================

Well, employers should have been providing insurance for their employees all along.

However, I agree with QD  (and W Bush for that matter) that people should own their insurance policies so they won't feel like they have to work at a certain company just for their insurance.

In fact, I used to know a lot of people who would retire, except they need the health insurance and are not yet old enough for Medicare.
Possibly, Obamacare may allow those people to retire early, thereby opening up a lot of jobs and taking some people off the unemployed rolls. Just thinkin' here.

See,

No offense but which is it should employers provide insurance or not?  All I know is the employes at my company FedEx are paying the price for the Cadillac Plan provision.  Fortunately I am covered by a Union CBA "thus my coverage cannot be changed" and could generally afford the hit anyway but that still does not stop me from sympathizing with the employes less fortunate than myself.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

cap one can buy insurance without involvement by an employer.

Cap is right law requires employers to provide insurance if employing 50 or more.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2...uth-company-benefits

You do know that was in the law right?

 

========================

Well, employers should have been providing insurance for their employees all along.

However, I agree with QD  (and W Bush for that matter) that people should own their insurance policies so they won't feel like they have to work at a certain company just for their insurance.

In fact, I used to know a lot of people who would retire, except they need the health insurance and are not yet old enough for Medicare.
Possibly, Obamacare may allow those people to retire early, thereby opening up a lot of jobs and taking some people off the unemployed rolls. Just thinkin' here.

See,

No offense but which is it should employers provide insurance or not?  All I know is the employes at my company FedEx are paying the price for the Cadillac Plan provision.  Fortunately I am covered by a Union CBA "thus my coverage cannot be changed" and could generally afford the hit anyway but that still does not stop me from sympathizing with the employes less fortunate than myself.

===========

Well, it is what it is. I mixed some ideological thought with reality . What it SHOULD  be, is insurance detached from work - personally I favor a "Medicare for all" type of plan. Because what the system IS, the cost of insurance is built into virtually every product or service offered in this country. That is not the case on the greater world stage where every one else has something ilke a Medicare for all type of coverage , and I mean everyone in all the developed countries. Therefore, the competitive advantage for manufacturing and services is in favor of other countries, instead of here in the USA.

However, it is what it is, and what it is in reality is that we live in a country where most people's insurance is provided by their employer. ( is there enough is's in that last statement ?)

So, yes, those employers SHOULD have already been providing health insurance options for their employees here in this country.

Not the ideal solution in an ideological sense, but ideal in the real world as it has existed in this country. 

no offense taken- we are just discussing ideas here.

I think it was Elenore Roosevelt who said
"Big people discuss ideas
Regular people discuss things

Little people discuss people"

You fall into the first group.

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×