FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Administration delays employer mandate for a year (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Administration delays employer mandate for a year
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Has anyone been reading about this? The employer mandate for health insurance is being delayed a year, to 2015. The individual mandate is still going into effect, along with the penalties for non-compliance. The health insurance exchanges look like they are also going into effect in 2014 as well.

I've been researching the ACA over the past few weeks and am doing a seminar for my clients tomorrow on all of the regulations they need to know about, and I can't believe the sheer amount of confusion I know this will cause for businesses. The pay or play laws in particular are going to cause some massive headaches for businesses and the IRS alike.

I've been able to amass a lot of information on the employer and individual mandates if anyone is interested. There are quite a few things that people may not be aware of. If anyone has any questions I probably have the answer. The company I work for seems to give us more and more information on the ACA the moment the information is released or a regulation is approved.

Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.

Honestly I think it is quite arrogant of the president for him to rewrite the law with his regulatory powers while threatening to veto an actual bill that does the same thing, especially since Congress has the Constitutional authority to rewrite or make changes to the law.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

"We?" lol
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.

2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thesifer
Member
Member # 12890

 - posted      Profile for Thesifer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope they now delay the individual mandate, causing Insurance Companies to lose tons of people that don't have to worry about not having insurance and having "pre-existing conditions" and then go out of business when they get flooded - and we get a Public Option or Single Payer.

But that's probably just wishful thinking.

Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.

2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law

Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?

If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thesifer:
I hope they now delay the individual mandate, causing Insurance Companies to lose tons of people that don't have to worry about not having insurance and having "pre-existing conditions" and then go out of business when they get flooded - and we get a Public Option or Single Payer.

But that's probably just wishful thinking.

Very wishful thinking. Delaying the individual mandate would do nothing at all. The individual mandate for 2014 is a 1% fee on your gross wages if you do not have insurance. For someone making 50,000 a year, this is $500, which is far less than what that person would be paying for a year in monthly premiums.

Many people who do not currently have insurance but have it available to them will simply take the fine for the first few years.

Delaying the employer mandate will simply mean that more people will be using the exchanges for the 2014 enrollment period. If a company does not offer coverage that meets the minimum required benefits, has deductibles that are too high, or is deemed unaffordable to an employee, they can go through the exchanges.

Delaying the mandate may cause more of a mess than it will help. Many employees will go through the exchanges for 2014, but will be forced to switch to their employer's health insurance plans when the mandate goes into effect. It will work like this:

1) My employer doesn't offer health insurance, so I go through an exchange. Open enrollment is from October 1, 2013 to March 14, 2014.

2) I have health insurance until the end of 2014.

3) Due to the mandate, my employer offers health insurance for the 2015 year that meets the minimum benefit requirements, and is deemed "affordable." (Health insurance premiums cannot exceed 9.5% of my annual adjusted gross income)

4) I am forced to go to my employer's health plan if I want health insurance. I can opt out of my employers plan, but will be unable to use the exchanges because my employer's plan meets those minimum requirements. If I do opt out I will not be able to sign up for health insurance until the next open enrollment period and will be subject to the tax penalty for that year.


And to those thinking your taxes will go up, they won't be unless you opt out of insurance or make over $200,000 a year. There are four taxes / fees in the Affordable Care act, and they will all be included in your premiums. Generally (From what I have read) this calculates out to a little under $100 a year.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
There's a thing called "credibility." It's actually a part of rhetoric. Specifically, part of what it involves is not claiming membership in a group, to which you do not actually belong. Especially, and importantly in this case, not doing so in order to make what you have to say sound better, or make yourself appear to be a party with an interest different from the one you actually have.

This is not to say you have *no* interest, simply that you have the interests of a *non* member. These are different interests, and you don't get to claim those of American citizens and residents; at least not without people pointing that out- which rather lessens the impact of your "rhetoric."

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.

2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law

Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?

If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?

Considering it is about direct management of a law and governmental system between two sections of government, I have no idea how a reason for it could be, expressly, 'non-political'

but on the whole the entire event is an example of what's been going on recently: as congress becomes more deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, the executive accrues power, first through stopgap measures just to keep some systems working, then more, then more, then more.

at any rate, the best reason the executive has right now to not give congress an inch in determining timetables for this bill is that congress is deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, and the house voted something like 40 times to grandstand about deleting this bill from existence, while accomplishing nothing. the republicans would prevent congress from doing anything with obamacare that wasn't designed to destroy it, any 'adjusted timetables' or congressional influence on it would be sabotage, poison pills, etc.

which is really sad, given that for all its flaws, obamacare is better than nothing

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
There's a thing called "credibility." It's actually a part of rhetoric. Specifically, part of what it involves is not claiming membership in a group, to which you do not actually belong. Especially, and importantly in this case, not doing so in order to make what you have to say sound better, or make yourself appear to be a party with an interest different from the one you actually have.

This is not to say you have *no* interest, simply that you have the interests of a *non* member. These are different interests, and you don't get to claim those of American citizens and residents; at least not without people pointing that out- which rather lessens the impact of your "rhetoric."

Aside from that there's more than one reason as to what would make the "we" pronoun appropriate "credibility" doesn't really factor in here, I don't need to be a part of the victimized class of peoples who get charged 50,000$ for a finger to point out how retardedly and bafflingly stupid such a societal set up is. My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident. It's a matter of "Rhetoric" because it is just what came naturally to mind because affordable healthcare should be a universal human right.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it wasn't something of a pattern of yours when commenting on all manner of American politics, current events and historical, that would all be more credible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident.
You're absolutely right. But your voice is *different*. You are not a US Citizen, nor a resident. The issues of what class you belong to have a bearing on your view of this debate- and while I agree with your views on it, I along with others in this discussion appreciate being clear on what our personal stakes really are. This is something that affects you *if* you visit the US, and through the machinations of international economics, etc. You mention being a "victim" class. Well, you don't have an inherent right to visit our country, nor can you claim yourself a victim of our system's vastly unfair and punitive medical system- it doesn't hold water. I can- I am a citizen with a right to be in America if I want to be, and a duty bound up in that to fulfill tax burdens and other obligations you don't have. It doesn't affect your direct tax burden, nor laws that directly impact you. That is an important distinction, and while it doesn't change the validity of your point of view, it *does* matter in evaluating it. You need to take that into account before you talk about "we" and "us," when you talk about the US.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.

If only.

I'll say it then.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Works for me. [Smile]
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident.
You're absolutely right. But your voice is *different*. You are not a US Citizen, nor a resident. The issues of what class you belong to have a bearing on your view of this debate- and while I agree with your views on it, I along with others in this discussion appreciate being clear on what our personal stakes really are. This is something that affects you *if* you visit the US, and through the machinations of international economics, etc. You mention being a "victim" class. Well, you don't have an inherent right to visit our country, nor can you claim yourself a victim of our system's vastly unfair and punitive medical system- it doesn't hold water. I can- I am a citizen with a right to be in America if I want to be, and a duty bound up in that to fulfill tax burdens and other obligations you don't have. It doesn't affect your direct tax burden, nor laws that directly impact you. That is an important distinction, and while it doesn't change the validity of your point of view, it *does* matter in evaluating it. You need to take that into account before you talk about "we" and "us," when you talk about the US.
I'm not even sure what you are really arguing, the usage of "we" or "us" is just a pronoun of symbolic meaning, its irrelevant in this context because that isn't a part of the grounds of the argument. Trying to argue that I have slightly less ethos? How does it matter? The argument is primarily rooted in its logos/pathos, the lack or lesser ethos doesn't affect the argument.

I don't need to be an American citizen to comment, nor do I need to recognize that there is even an distinction because it isn't important, it isn't germane to the discussion.

If your *really* going to go into the "I pay taxes/this stuff affects me/so my opinion evaluates as more important", that's pretty dumb because I can always point out; with quite a bit of validity that if and when your country collapses into a third world hellscape (Maybe when the Republicans next default on the ~debt ceiling~) it damn well affect Canada's economy, and my economic well being. The whole world is hostage to American economic whimsy so damn straight our opinions whether its Canadian, Russian, Afrikaner or Chinese evaluates as just as relevant as yours because we're all in the same damn boat.

e: http://canada.usembassy.gov/visas/information-for-canadians.html Also apparently as long as I have a passport I can visit whenever, w/e.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.

2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law

Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?

If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?

Considering it is about direct management of a law and governmental system between two sections of government, I have no idea how a reason for it could be, expressly, 'non-political'

but on the whole the entire event is an example of what's been going on recently: as congress becomes more deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, the executive accrues power, first through stopgap measures just to keep some systems working, then more, then more, then more.

at any rate, the best reason the executive has right now to not give congress an inch in determining timetables for this bill is that congress is deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, and the house voted something like 40 times to grandstand about deleting this bill from existence, while accomplishing nothing. the republicans would prevent congress from doing anything with obamacare that wasn't designed to destroy it, any 'adjusted timetables' or congressional influence on it would be sabotage, poison pills, etc.

which is really sad, given that for all its flaws, obamacare is better than nothing

True, it is better than nothing. What this does though is set a precedent. The Supreme Court ruled the penalty is a tax. The POTUS no say when it comes to Tax law. The executive branch is basically stating that it will not enforce tax law for a year. This is a dangerous thing to start.

What happens if a president decides that any penalties for his rich buddies not paying taxes should just not be enforced for a year? Or if a President decides to raise / lower tax rates on a whim? They can now point to precedent to argue that they have the power to do it.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In this case, I'm actually inclined to agree with Geraine. It's a bad precedent.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are entitled to have an opinion. However, as you aren't a resident or a citizen, your opinion DOES matter less, and holds less weight.

It's not your system, or your rights that are being discussed, nor is it your wallet that might be affected.

If you don't understand that....well, that's yet another factor why your opinion might matter less.

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I don't think that's true. It might be an underlying cause of being misinformed. But that's the credibility (or weight). But look at this way: One could argue that pro-activity over something you have no stake in and don't benefit from the results of, should be applauded even more when you have something at stake. And I don't want to appear to be defending Blayne. Trust me. I really, really don't. But I feel like if this were any other canuck you guys wouldn't be getting as distracted with it. Saying "we" specifically might lose you some credebility, but getting into skirmish with a "teammate" over something so marginal and petty is kind of missing the point considering why you don't like it in the first place.

[ July 26, 2013, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]

Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.

That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.

Since the federal government wasn't enforcing immigration laws, did Arizona have a right to take it upon themselves?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Atlantic had a pretty good article the other day about how Republicans are going even further off the deep end than we've seen thus far on the Obamacare issue. Many are gearing up for a threat to defund the entire government or not pass the debt ceiling hike later this year unless Obama agrees to repeal the health care plan. They also have an all out push to make sure the plan is as difficult to enact as possible.

Thankfully the media is finally starting to call them out on it. Though I doubt it'll extend much beyond the New Yorker and The Atlantic.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The Atlantic had a pretty good article the other day about how Republicans are going even further off the deep end than we've seen thus far on the Obamacare issue. Many are gearing up for a threat to defund the entire government or not pass the debt ceiling hike later this year unless Obama agrees to repeal the health care plan. They also have an all out push to make sure the plan is as difficult to enact as possible.

Thankfully the media is finally starting to call them out on it. Though I doubt it'll extend much beyond the New Yorker and The Atlantic.

Mike Lee from Utah started this. From the interview I heard, funding Obamacare is a completely separate vote from the debt ceiling, divided by a month or two. Lee is trying to get support to not fund Obamacare, which would effectively kill it completely.

By his own admission it is a long shot, but he's trying anyways.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Word on the hill is that he's gained support from most of the GOP leadership to put a gun to Obama's head when the debt ceiling vote comes up.

Boehner is terrified of his own caucus and won't put up a fight, not with Cantor breathing down his neck, and McConnell is up for any extreme in the Senate.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.

That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.
We can talk about whether it is right, but in this case it essentially becomes legal and we're talking about whether or not this is what will happen in all cases where a country's legislature becomes useless (the executive, or some form thereof, will abrogate power to itself to move around deadlock. if congress fails, it doesn't just fail itself, it fails the balance of power for the whole nation).

In this case, the republicans have put the executive in a position where they are weaponizing doing the 'right' thing — they will immolate the system to save themselves. The current "destroy everything and break government until we get what we want" thing that's getting ramped up by republican senators is just more evidence to this fact. They make doing the "right" thing politically unapproachable.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
You are entitled to have an opinion. However, as you aren't a resident or a citizen, your opinion DOES matter less, and holds less weight.

It's not your system, or your rights that are being discussed, nor is it your wallet that might be affected.

If you don't understand that....well, that's yet another factor why your opinion might matter less.

As umberhulk says at most not being a part of the system would make it more possible to be less informed of such a system.

Of course considering the whole "death panels" thing being a part of the system, especially one as large and complex as national healthcare where the best criticism has been "The bill is too long to read!" being a part of said system isn't a guaranteer of being well informed either.

Anyways, I feel that the assertion "You are not a part of this group, ergo you cannot comment on it on the same levels of those in the group" is unsupported. It is *not* that "understand" your point, fallacy aside! Its that I, after a reasoned analysis completely reject it. Especially as I've already demonstrated that *I am* in some way affected.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Samprimary:
of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.

That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.
We can talk about whether it is right, but in this case it essentially becomes legal and we're talking about whether or not this is what will happen in all cases where a country's legislature becomes useless (the executive, or some form thereof, will abrogate power to itself to move around deadlock. if congress fails, it doesn't just fail itself, it fails the balance of power for the whole nation).

In this case, the republicans have put the executive in a position where they are weaponizing doing the 'right' thing — they will immolate the system to save themselves. The current "destroy everything and break government until we get what we want" thing that's getting ramped up by republican senators is just more evidence to this fact. They make doing the "right" thing politically unapproachable.
[/QUOTE}

It takes two to tango. Neither side is working with the other. You can blame only republicans, but keep in mind this happened during republican administrations as well.

Congress being broken does not give a carte blanche to the president to do whatever he wants. You can argue that he has a moral right to do something, but the law of the land is not based on what someone deems moral.

If the roles were reversed and there were democrats that did not like a certain type of legislation on tax law that would benefit a certain group, would you complain if a republican president chose to take it upon himself for what he and some of his party thought was "moral?"

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can blame only republicans, but keep in mind this happened during republican administrations as well.
The Democratic party used the debt ceiling vote as leverage for securing Republican support of their agenda during the Bush years?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, a reminder from 2011, just in case we're going to stick to the predictable habits of the past:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Just to reinforce, there's two things going on here which are direly repetitive and need to end.

1. false equivalence arguments - no, both sides are not equally guilty. they never are.

2. responding to a claim that one side is more guilty, more culpable, or bears more responsibility for a negative thing by saying 'how dare you claim that one side has a monopoly/commits 100% of/is totally at fault for ...'

secondly

quote:
Congress being broken does not give a carte blanche to the president to do whatever he wants. You can argue that he has a moral right to do something, but the law of the land is not based on what someone deems moral.
I'll reiterate the previous point: a very consistent and inescapably predictable trend is that when a congress/parliament/whatever legislative branch of government becomes deadlocked through intransigent obstructionism or any other form of paralysis, the nearly inescapable trend is consistently always that power will become abrogated to executive. I'm not talking about whether or not that's "moral," rather than the fact that every single time this sort of thing happens, the end result is an unchecked executive. This is one of the reasons why I completely loathe what republicans have done to congress, as it is vastly accelerating the decay of the balance of powers.

The republicans have repeatedly shown over the length of Obama's first term that they were willing in sufficient numbers to paralyze the nation and subvert and destroy working parts of government with the intent of preventing a second term. His re-election did not end this poison pill mentality — they are continuing it with the intent to try as much as is possible to make things worse in the hopes that they can foster and inspire blame towards the democratic party, in the hopes that it inspires a reversal of their decay and a people to vote for them as the alternative that will make things better again. In turn, Obama has shown that he is just as willing or even eager to recklessly expand the power of the presidency in the face of the impotence of congress. No president thereafter is likely to willingly scale back the executive when they know that congress will just weaponize this with further obstructionism. It becomes a one-way street.

And under no circumstances here are we talking about "it takes two to tango!" or the idea that the scale of intransigent obstructionism has ever, ever, ever been matched by democrats. It has not. The republicans are doing something to congress (and thus the nation) right now, which is bad. The democrats are not. When the democrats are doing it, it will be a different story. But right now they are not, and never have done this to the extent the republicans are.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alright Sam, remove the last part of my sentence and I will rephrase. You can blame only republicans for the failure of congress, but it isn't only their fault.

I could argue that one of the reasons for the obstructionism is due to Reid not letting any Republican amendments through. He's now blocked more minority amendments than his five predecessors combined. At times even REASONABLE requests for amendments have completely halted bills from being passed. Take a look at the Defense Authorization bill in 2010. Susan Collins (One of the last moderate republicans in the senate) asked that Reid allow 15 amendments and four days of debate. Keep in mind that normal defense bills take weeks to debate and usually have hundreds of amendments. Reid chose to deny the request, knowing that some of the republican backed amendments were likely to pass. The result? The bill failed 57-40.

So yes, Republicans obstruct in cloture votes. Reid obstructs on allowing minority amendments, But nobody really pays attention to those. If the republicans ever gain control of the senate and don't allow any minority amendments and the democrats start voting against everything they don't have a say in, I won't blame them.

So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.

I'm happy that there are at least SOME things they seem to be working out, such as Immigration. The difference? Reid allowed some minority amendments to be brought to the floor. Not very many, but enough to please (13?) Republicans who voted yes on the bill.


I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.

Please explain how subverting the Constitution completely and bypassing Congress is GOOD for the country. We have balance of powers for a reason. You and many others disagree with how Republicans are acting, as I do. But how does one make the leap that taking power away from Congress and giving it to one man is a positive thing?

Secondly, I am curious to know if you would be throwing a stink about this if it were a Republican president doing this.

We hold elections for a reason. If you don't like the way Republicans are acting, get involved in the elections and vote them out.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.
you're not .. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I'm sure not saying this. Maybe go back and reread, I dunno.

quote:
So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.
Are you saying that this means that republicans and democrats are equally to blame for the failure of congress.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.
you're not .. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I'm sure not saying this. Maybe go back and reread, I dunno.

quote:
So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.
Are you saying that this means that republicans and democrats are equally to blame for the failure of congress.

I re-read your post and I still come to the same conclusion. Congress not acting the way they should hardly makes it "legal" for the President to expand the powers of the executive branch.

I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.

If the republican leadership was smart, they would continue to try and submit amendments. If Reid denies any amendments from being submitted fine, they vote no. They could then turn this whole "obstruction" argument back on the democrats. If a bill turns out to be bad for the country, the only ones to blame would be democrats.

You can already see some blow back like this on Obamacare. More and more politicians are trying to distance themselves from the bill, especially those from states with high union worker populations. (Unions are now saying Obamacare is a job killer. Surprise surprise!) They'll never vote to repeal it of course, (The DNC would fund primary opponents if they did) but they will try to keep it out of the campaign completely.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You said "I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good."

You don't get that I in no way think that the way the balance of powers WILL change because of how republicans have broken congress is "good."

Just "inevitable."

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.
So you think Democrats are more to blame? *laugh*
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.
So you think Democrats are more to blame? *laugh*
I think you are reading things into Geraine's statement that were not said.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, one of the two is "reprehensible," where the other shouldn't be doing what it's doing to the current extent.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it's like

99/100ths of the problem: "they are doing it beyond the extent to which they should be doing it."

1/100ths of the problem: "absolutely reprehensible!"

On the whole though I find pulling up the fact that minority amendments are largely being blocked by Reid to be a rather pointless attempt at diverting criticism for the brokenness of congress, especially considering that tree-filling to block minority amendments was primarily the result of the GOP abusing minority amendments to junk up and blatantly poison-pill bills that they wanted to fail.

Geraine, please show me the editorials and stuff you are getting the minority amendment issue from. I'd like to see this like of reasoning and attack from its source.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our founding fathers created a system with powerful protections. The Congress has the right to make laws and make the budget. The President has the right to enforce those laws as he sees fit.

So the Supreme Court considers the fees charged for not offering insurance to be a tax, and the executive branch decided not to enforce that tax until next year.

They do so in order to make things easier. No problem.

But somebody starts complaining that this allows the President and the Executive Branch to unilaterally decide when and how to enforce tax law.

Yes--that is what the Executive Branch does.

Buy, what if the President decides that some taxes don't need to be collected elsewhere--like for his good buddies?

Well then, we don't reelect that President, and we have the next President collect the back taxes owed.

I can see many reasons where the Executive Branch would take it on its own not to collect taxes due--in the case of a disaster, or economic collapse of an industry. If they have a good reason, as President Obama has for the delay in the Insurance Tax, then it is his duty to delay it.

The President has the power to pardon any person or entity he feels fit to pardon. Pardoning someone from paying their taxes is part of that power. Sure, if its abused then he and his party will pay for that abuse.

Until its abused, don't panic.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Get rid of Congress entirely.

At this point I'd vote for a democratically elected monarch for a 6 year term.

One of the joys of the British system is that a government can actually enact its policy. Bizarre, I know, but one side clearly wins, and they can enact their policy for a period of time. Then people can actually sort of gauge whether they like that party or not, because they've actually done something to like or not like.

In America? Not so much. We vote defensively.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Yeah, it's like

99/100ths of the problem: "they are doing it beyond the extent to which they should be doing it."

1/100ths of the problem: "absolutely reprehensible!"

On the whole though I find pulling up the fact that minority amendments are largely being blocked by Reid to be a rather pointless attempt at diverting criticism for the brokenness of congress, especially considering that tree-filling to block minority amendments was primarily the result of the GOP abusing minority amendments to junk up and blatantly poison-pill bills that they wanted to fail.

Geraine, please show me the editorials and stuff you are getting the minority amendment issue from. I'd like to see this like of reasoning and attack from its source.

I don't know why you are using those percentages, other than to show the same political bias you think I am showing.

I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.

You can say it is an attempt to deflect criticism, but the tree filling began well before the republicans had the ability to filibuster. There are records (You can look them up on congresses website and read through them if you like) that show Reid was doing this back as far back as 2008. In 2010 he said he was going to stop doing this, but as of right now hasn't.

Again, not making excuses for republicans. If you want to play word games fine, I think their behavior is "reprehensible" as well.

This is a pretty good article on it from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/us/politics/new-senates-first-task-will-likely-be-trying-to-fix-itself.html?pagewanted=all

Yes, republicans have tried to fill the amendment process with bad amendments. To that I question "Why not just vote those amendments down" and two, why not read and allow some amendments that are reasonable? Throwing a blanket ban on republican amendments is not the way you should go about things.

The immigration bill was a positive break from this trend, as there was a very good republican amendment that was voted on and that passed. We need more bipartisan work like this. It's amazing how the republicans didn't filibuster and Reid allowed some amendments, eh?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Our founding fathers created a system with powerful protections. The Congress has the right to make laws and make the budget. The President has the right to enforce those laws as he sees fit.

So the Supreme Court considers the fees charged for not offering insurance to be a tax, and the executive branch decided not to enforce that tax until next year.

They do so in order to make things easier. No problem.

But somebody starts complaining that this allows the President and the Executive Branch to unilaterally decide when and how to enforce tax law.

Yes--that is what the Executive Branch does.

Buy, what if the President decides that some taxes don't need to be collected elsewhere--like for his good buddies?

Well then, we don't reelect that President, and we have the next President collect the back taxes owed.

I can see many reasons where the Executive Branch would take it on its own not to collect taxes due--in the case of a disaster, or economic collapse of an industry. If they have a good reason, as President Obama has for the delay in the Insurance Tax, then it is his duty to delay it.

The President has the power to pardon any person or entity he feels fit to pardon. Pardoning someone from paying their taxes is part of that power. Sure, if its abused then he and his party will pay for that abuse.

Until its abused, don't panic.

It could be argued that this is already being abused, and we already have history stating that the president cannot do this.

Article II section 3 states "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power.

While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

Nixon tried to do that by not spending money appropriated by Congress and was told he couldn't. In Clinton vs. City of New York, the opinion read "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Then there is Kendall v. United States, which said the president being able to do this "would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice."

The ACA did not contain anything in the bill that allows the President to delay, suspend, or repeal it. Basically under this precedent, if a republican president wins in the next 8-12 he could have simply choose not to enforce any part of the ACA, effectively getting rid of it completely.

Then we will be here listening to the same people that think it is ok now bitch and moan about him doing it.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.
Then, a simple question: between Republicans and Democrats, which party is more responsible for the complete degradation of congress into its current state?

Are you going to say that it's useless to assign percentages so we can't say it's one way or another, just a binary calculation that holds both sides at fault?

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Careful guys. Samp is on a crusade!
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he's just calling somebody on some stupidity, actually.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems to me like an attempt to minimize his team's (Democrats) culpability by making sure that Geraine knows and admits that Republicans are more responsible therefore exonerating Democrats of any blame.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I cannot be held responsible for your misconceptions, and frankly think it's unfair of you to blame Samp for 'em. Seriously, Sam's been quite up-front about why he's having this particular discussion, and your imputed motives drip of bias and quite frankly either a lack of reading comprehension or attention.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.
Then, a simple question: between Republicans and Democrats, which party is more responsible for the complete degradation of congress into its current state?

Are you going to say that it's useless to assign percentages so we can't say it's one way or another, just a binary calculation that holds both sides at fault?

My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference. In your opinion, republicans are more to blame. That's fine. Many people agree with you. If you speak to to others (mostly republicans) they'll tell you that democrats are more to blame. They believe republicans using the filibuster is the only way they can prevent horrible legislation from being passed. I can see both arguments, but I'm not going to blame one side more than the other.

If you and I stabbed someone but I stabbed him 10 times while you only stabbed him 9, should we both be charged with (attempted) murder or should you get a lesser charge because you stabbed him less times than you?

That's the way I look at the whole situation. Neither one of us should have stabbed the poor sap, and both are to blame.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I cannot be held responsible for your misconceptions, and frankly think it's unfair of you to blame Samp for 'em. Seriously, Sam's been quite up-front about why he's having this particular discussion, and your imputed motives drip of bias and quite frankly either a lack of reading comprehension or attention.

I would say mine drips about as much bias as yours and Sam's post. My attempt was to show that. I've noticed that Sam in particular is quick to point out that other people are bias but refuses to acknowledge his own.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
Careful guys. Samp is on a crusade!

Samprimary is always on a crusade.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2