02-16-2014 07:38 AM
308 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. palandri's Avatar
    Quick question for anyone that feels the need to answer:

    If you support the president in him bypassing congress to enact policy, would you also support another president if everything were opposite? If the president were Republican and the control of congress were the opposite but with the same gridlock, would you still support the president if he were attempting to pass policies that you did not agree with by executive order?
    If a Republican president signs an executive order that helps working people, I would be good with it. For instance, if Bush wasn't able to pass the 99 week unemployment extension through congress and signed an executive order for it, I would be good with it.

    I really think we need to change things up to get things done. Going with either a house or a senate, but not both. I would also like to see equal proportion representation, and a prime minister which we talked about before.
    02-03-2014 08:15 AM
  2. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    If a Republican president signs an executive order that helps working people, I would be good with it. For instance, if Bush wasn't able to pass the 99 week unemployment extension through congress and signed an executive order for it, I would be good with it.

    I really think we need to change things up to get things done. Going with either a house or a senate, but not both. I would also like to see equal proportion representation, and a prime minister which we talked about before.
    Treading dangerous waters.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-03-2014 08:19 AM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If a Republican president signs an executive order that helps working people, I would be good with it. For instance, if Bush wasn't able to pass the 99 week unemployment extension through congress and signed an executive order for it, I would be good with it.

    I really think we need to change things up to get things done. Going with either a house or a senate, but not both. I would also like to see equal proportion representation, and a prime minister which we talked about before.
    So essentially you have no problem with checks and balances being more or less violated as long as the policy you want gets through... In other words, you do not care about the system or how it is supposed to work. All you care about is your personal wishes being granted.
    cdmjlt369 and SteveISU like this.
    02-03-2014 08:21 AM
  4. llamabreath's Avatar
    So essentially you have no problem with checks and balances being more or less violated as long as the policy you want gets through... In other words, you do not care about the system or how it is supposed to work. All you care about is your personal wishes being granted.
    Would work very well with a dictatorship.



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    02-03-2014 08:35 AM
  5. palandri's Avatar
    Treading dangerous waters.
    So essentially you have no problem with checks and balances being more or less violated as long as the policy you want gets through... In other words, you do not care about the system or how it is supposed to work. All you care about is your personal wishes being granted.
    I understand checks and balances. Executives orders need to be used with great caution. Every recent President has used executive orders. It has nothing to do with my my personal wishes, because I am always thinking "we" as in helping working people as a whole.

    Like I said, I think we would be better off with equal proportion representation, and a prime minister.
    02-03-2014 08:44 AM
  6. SteveISU's Avatar
    Actually, you should blame your state or your employer for your plan going up in cost. They're the ones passing the cost off to you, not Obamacare. States that already satisfy many provisions of Obamcare have lower premiums (see: NY). ETA: And the Republicans don't want the law to succeed...that's why they've challenged it 40-something times.
    Use a better example than NY. If you don't know why then I suggest you do some research that goes back to 1992.
    02-03-2014 10:34 AM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    So essentially you have no problem with checks and balances being more or less violated as long as the policy you want gets through... In other words, you do not care about the system or how it is supposed to work. All you care about is your personal wishes being granted.
    Sounds good, people have no problem pissing all over the constitution if serves them and they don't like the other party. How about we start waving term limits for the POTUS is he hands out enough of what someone likes.
    02-03-2014 10:39 AM
  8. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Use a better example than NY. If you don't know why then I suggest you do some research that goes back to 1992.
    No, I can use any example I want and New York fits the bill. I did the research, I'm not sorry if it doesn't coincide with your Fox News talking points. How about you provide an example if mine displeased you?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-03-2014 10:54 AM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    No, I can use any example I want and New York fits the bill. I did the research, I'm not sorry if it doesn't coincide with your Fox News talking points. How about you provide an example if mine displeased you?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    How about the fact that NY as well as a handful of other states (ie..Washington) have had their insurance markets regulated to the hilt well before the ACA. Some states have already been using a community rating that drove many younger people out of the insurance market all together. The individual mandate and subsides forced those people back in. NY premiums had no where to go but down because they were some of the highest in the nation. Partly due to Cuomo driving insurance carriers out of the state, resulting in less competition. Lets not forget that NY is more than just the 5 boroughs.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    02-03-2014 11:04 AM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I understand checks and balances. Executives orders need to be used with great caution. Every recent President has used executive orders. It has nothing to do with my my personal wishes, because I am always thinking "we" as in helping working people as a whole.

    Like I said, I think we would be better off with equal proportion representation, and a prime minister.
    Executive orders should only be used when acts of congress are not fast enough for an urgent matter. They should NEVER be used to circumvent congress.

    It is your opinion, which is no more or less valuable that anyone else's, that these policies will help "we". Just because you believe that these policies will help whomever, does not mean they will. In fact, opposing policies also attempt to help "we". Your statement above implies that you are fighting for everyone and opposing policies are fighting for someone else. If you truly believe that than your arrogance is beyond reaching. Everyone is fighting for the same thing. Just different opinions on how to accomplish what is best for the country and its citizens.
    02-03-2014 11:36 AM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You didn't cite fox news in THAT post, but you've used their talking points elsewhere.

    The video is a demonstration that proves my point about the earlier statistic that the public is against Obamacare. They are against it, until you ask them about specific parts. It only shows you how easily the public is manipulated into thinking something is bad for them via the talking heads of the right.

    As long as we're talking about losing credibility, you lost yours when you thought you had separation from low paid burger flippers because you think you believe your trade of driving a truck for a living requires some sort of special skill. I had a cousin that drove a truck for a living and he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. It reminded me of the yokels that think NASCAR is an athletic sport. If that's the case then I must be the Cal Ripken of the 'sport' because I've driven for over 20 years without an incident.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    Considering I rarely listen to Fox news, that's interesting. Still, your video proved nothing. It's just a comedy bit and nothing more. There could have been a thousand people that gave answers the producers didn't want before finding the few that did, and you'd never know. You're also making the claim in a vacuum, not taking into account what can, and has happened for people to get those few perks.

    As for the trucking comment, there's good and bad workers in every job. Most people that try trucking don't last long because they aren't cut out for the lifestyle or can't grasp the skills. People willing to work as a cashier or flipping burgers can be trained in a day and are a dime a dozen. I don't expect you to understand the industry the same as an insider, but that doesn't mean you can write it off from one knuckle head you may have known in it. Mocking a business or person's name is just a willful insult.
    02-03-2014 11:37 AM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Executive orders should only be used when acts of congress are not fast enough for an urgent matter. They should NEVER be used to circumvent congress.

    It is your opinion, which is no more or less valuable that anyone else's, that these policies will help "we". Just because you believe that these policies will help whomever, does not mean they will. In fact, opposing policies also attempt to help "we". Your statement above implies that you are fighting for everyone and opposing policies are fighting for someone else. If you truly believe that than your arrogance is beyond reaching. Everyone is fighting for the same thing. Just different opinions on how to accomplish what is best for the country and its citizens.
    The ends justify the means to some people, and the left seem especially prone to it. Look at all the hoaxes used to intact rules about racism or sexism. Things like someone vandalizing their own property and then claiming it was done by someone else because of their race, gender, whatever. The community gets all in an uproar and they try to find ways to solve the "menace." Then when the investigation finds there was no crime committed and it was all staged, the person doing so claims they just wanted to draw attention to some problem they think exists (but usually doesn't).
    02-03-2014 11:44 AM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    Executive orders should only be used when acts of congress are not fast enough for an urgent matter. They should NEVER be used to circumvent congress.

    It is your opinion, which is no more or less valuable that anyone else's, that these policies will help "we". Just because you believe that these policies will help whomever, does not mean they will. In fact, opposing policies also attempt to help "we". Your statement above implies that you are fighting for everyone and opposing policies are fighting for someone else. If you truly believe that than your arrogance is beyond reaching. Everyone is fighting for the same thing. Just different opinions on how to accomplish what is best for the country and its citizens.
    Executive orders get judicial review. if a President thinks an issue has the potential to undermine the very foundations of our nation, he can issue an executive order. It's been used to desegregate school and integrate the armed forces. In fact, I think Roosevelt used it to round up Japanese during WW2.

    I see a working class and an owning class. I stand by and support the working class. I think "we" rather than "me". The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You won't change my mind, nor could I ever change your mind.
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-03-2014 01:34 PM
  14. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Executive orders get judicial review. if a President thinks an issue has the potential to undermine the very foundations of our nation, he can issue an executive order. It's been used to desegregate school and integrate the armed forces. In fact, I think Roosevelt used it to round up Japanese during WW2.

    I see a working class and an owning class. I stand by and support the working class. I think "we" rather than "me". The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You won't change my mind, nor could I ever change your mind.
    And so the few people the ACA has helped is more important than the many it's hurt? OK.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-03-2014 02:43 PM
  15. GadgetGator's Avatar
    And so the few people the ACA has helped is more important than the many it's hurt? OK.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Few people? Why do you think it's only helped a "few". And to get back to my earlier post, do you think others should be excluded from healthcare so that you may have lower rates?

    Posted via Android Central App
    02-03-2014 03:22 PM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Few people? Why do you think it's only helped a "few". And to get back to my earlier post, do you think others should be excluded from healthcare so that you may have lower rates?

    Posted via Android Central App
    Everyone should have access to healthcare. But do something that doesn't mess up the ones that do. And yes, I blame the Republicans as much because they sat back and watched and put forth no plans until obamacare was passed. I just think it could have been handled differently.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-03-2014 03:59 PM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    Few people? Why do you think it's only helped a "few". And to get back to my earlier post, do you think others should be excluded from healthcare so that you may have lower rates?

    Posted via Android Central App
    I personally think if you want to fix the system you don't invite the companies that want nothing more than to protect their profits as the first ones to the table.

    1. Individual mandate with a penalty of up $5000 per year (not $95 which won't scare anyone).
    2. A national health insurance plan that is for ZERO profit. If insurance companies wanna make a buck they can do it by offering supplemental coverage.
    3. Reinsurance pools, so one company doesn't net a huge gain by only insuring healthy people.
    4. Open competition across state lines
    5. Tort Reform
    6. Remove employers as the purchasers of health insurance, hand each employee X dollars to go out and buy their own insurance plan tax free. Any money left over is taxed at the whatever the normal income rate is. No people aren't too stupid to buy their own insurance (see Pareto's law). If you leave it up to politicians we will be fed things we don't need because someone is trying to get elected. If DC politicians were in charge of buying everyone a car the people in Florida would have heated seats just like those in Minnesota.
    02-03-2014 04:01 PM
  18. palandri's Avatar
    I personally think if you want to fix the system you don't invite the companies that want nothing more than to protect their profits as the first ones to the table.

    1. Individual mandate with a penalty of up $5000 per year (not $95 which won't scare anyone).
    2. A national health insurance plan that is for ZERO profit. If insurance companies wanna make a buck they can do it by offering supplemental coverage.
    3. Reinsurance pools, so one company doesn't net a huge gain by only insuring healthy people.
    4. Open competition across state lines
    5. Tort Reform
    6. Remove employers as the purchasers of health insurance, hand each employee X dollars to go out and buy their own insurance plan tax free. Any money left over is taxed at the whatever the normal income rate is. No people aren't too stupid to buy their own insurance (see Pareto's law). If you leave it up to politicians we will be fed things we don't need because someone is trying to get elected. If DC politicians were in charge of buying everyone a car the people in Florida would have heated seats just like those in Minnesota.
    I think healthcare needs to be not for profit also.
    02-03-2014 04:20 PM
  19. SteveISU's Avatar
    If you have a national "not for profit" health insurance plan, what good would competition across state lines do?
    Brings down the rates for the supplemental policies (ie....many on medicare carry a supplemental to cover what medicare does not)
    02-03-2014 04:22 PM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    Brings down the rates for the supplemental policies.
    I thought about that after I wrote it and thought I figured it out.
    02-03-2014 04:26 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Would you allow the use of catastrophic plans, combined with medical savings accounts? That's the kind of plan I'd want and puts more power/responsibility into the hands of the people.
    02-03-2014 04:34 PM
  22. palandri's Avatar
    Would you allow not for profit insurance companies to farm the work out to overseas companies to save on labor cost like businesses do to save money?
    02-03-2014 04:38 PM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    Would you allow the use of catastrophic plans, combined with medical savings accounts? That's the kind of plan I'd want and puts more power/responsibility into the hands of the people.
    What do you do if you're making minimum wage? Do you expect people to save money making minimum wage?

    What would be enough money in a medical savings account? It's an important question to cut down on bankruptcy due to medical bills.
    02-03-2014 04:41 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    What's the most inexpensive way to insure that everyone, regardless of demographics, has basic comprehensive health insurance or otherwise access to health care?

    (It doesn't need to cover elective nose jobs, but does need to cover preventative care, emergency, most illnesses and injuries, etc...)
    02-03-2014 05:30 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    Treading dangerous waters.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    The first shots were fired before Obama's first year. And say that Limbaugh doesn't represent the GOP all you want, he represents a large portion of the crazy fringe GOP.

    palandri and GadgetGator like this.
    02-03-2014 05:41 PM
308 ... 45678 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 04:15 PM
  3. Google Now in place of S Voice
    By roguetrader in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 11:24 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 09:36 AM
  5. The Nexus 4 Question !
    By Mateusz Gmyz in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 07:38 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD