You are ignoring what happened. You linl to a disgruntled ex employee pushong a book snd an opinion piece in the op-ed section of the NYT that is long on "i've seen this but you havn't"and short on your claim of bush's motivation outside of opinion. Here is a word of wisdom that will serve you well in life. Opinion is not fact. Even if opinion is factually correct, it is still opinion about facts and not fact.
If you did not dismiss history, you would remember that even under Clinton, IRAQ and Saddam was seen as the single largest threat to the US for more than a decade before bush took office. For all the information you presented, Bush'S WAR STANCE with Iraq could very well be the difference between his policies of using the military and force as apposed to clinton's reliance on lae enforcement and procecutions. That certainly seems more supportive of all the availible evidence.
Here is a thought experiment for you. If bush and iraq was as you say, then why didn't he invade Iraq right after 9/11 and then once in war say "opps my bad, we are here so we need to finish now"? I mean seriously, the athirization for use of force did not limit him to afghanistan or al qeada or the taliban. He could have easily invaded Iraq and simply said he had bad inteligence after the fact. That's the problem, instead of doing something like that, he laid out all the intelifence we had, went to the UN, then convinced congress that the threat of terrorism and iraq's unaccoubted wmds made it in our best interest to invade. And before you jump to the "but there were no wmds" read the war resolution for iraq. It did not say there had to be wmds.
Again, comprehension. I never said i was against all welfate. I was against pretending it was a biblical obligation or christian teaching. That is my biggest contention with the comment on it.
I see you worked in national healthcare too. Just to kick the can a bit, im not against that either. I have some serious problems with hoe they are trying to do it though.
Comprehension my friend. If you lack it, find someone near you and have them read and explain my posts. Welfare allows busineses to pay less than a living wage and keep employees because the government makes it up.
Now, where in the bible does it teach that you ae to take from others, that you are to force people to do something they wouldn't already do, where in the christian teaching does it say anything about forcing anyone to fo something. All there seems to be is passages that show concequences for actions or inaction. Ig you look in yhe old testament (the jewish portion) you will see several examples of this.
You are arguing why the welfare state should exist and why christians could continue following their teachings if anything is left over. You ae not arguing that christian teachings support welfare yet you want to conflate them as the same despite the christian teachings saying it is your personal responsability to fo those works, not your srceetary's or the governments. The differnce is enormouse in the sense of salvation and your relationship with God. You are saying in essence, let us do your godly works for you, it is the christian way when it is nowhere close to it. You are in essence saying there us an engine and a door, it must be a care when it is a generator for backup electrical supply- then when told you are wrong, you insist it is still a car despite not having a drivetrain or a steering wheel.
Btw, I,m posting from a phone due to traveling. Thanks for being readonable about the spelling and grammar issues that i know is plaguing my post when posting from my phone.
All that so called education and you still are that ignorany. Hmm. I don't know what to tell you other then you failed to learn anything. The bible and the pasages you referenced are about your personal duty not you passing it off to your secretary or govrrnment to fo in your stead. You claim is like saying having sex for procreational reasons is child molestation because sex and a child are involved in the concept. You ae simply wrong.
You also do not need to belive in god or the christian teaching in order to accurately portrey them.
I think you have a serious problem with intelectual honesty. I have not said that taxes are bad or anything of the sort and even if i did, that wouldn't preclude me from supporting limited taxes for limited government services like police and fire or whatever else i thought was neccesary. However, you will not find me going around under the misguided and improper understanding of god wanted it that way because it followd the christian teaching that you somehow failed to grasp. If your comprehension was as great as your desie to distort the christian teaching to fit your own political ideology, you would note that outsiee of showing how government welfare has damaged society causing the need for more if it, the only thing i objected to was your incorect asignment if chtistian teaching yo yhe welfae state. If course i don't think we would be having this discussion if comprehension and intelectusl honesty wasn't an issue wiyh you.
Bill clinton was planning the same. There is no secrete about contingency plans on the table concerning Iraq. Iraq was the biggest problem to the US at the time before 9/11.
What is fraudulent is the revisionist history assigning motive when common sense showd otherwise.
Wow- just wow. You sure are deranged an revising history in order to support some ideology that can't otherwise survive.
First, all to so called intel we had did not say anything specific enough to identify 9/11 nor the date or times it would happen without the hindsight if it actually happening. Second, if iraq were as you said, then we would have invaded right after 9/11- 2001, not wait two and a half years to make a bunch of statements before invading on a separate war resolution in 2003. If it were as you stated, we would have simply went in after the authorization for use of force for Afghanistan and said our bad, we made a mistake when the rest of the world called us on it. Instead, a separate case was made, it relied mostly on the same intel that previous presidents an thier supporters used, the same intel the rest of the world had, and outside France who had secrete oil deals which leveraged UN sanctions to make them lucrative, the rest of the world either thought iraq was contained and invasion was premature or that certain pieces of inteligence were creditable enough for sanctions but not invasion at the start of the war.
Look up the first red scare and the communist activities in the US circa 1919. You sre correct that in recent times, comunist have not done anything violent in the US but rhat wasn't always the case.
Not that this detracts from your point or anything. It is just a little perspective.
You did not show any christian teachings on government welfare though. You showed the personal obligations within the christian teachings. Yiu can't be assed to learn anyrhing about it so perhaps you shouldn't pretend to know about it.
As far as welfare and taxes in general, you can belive anything you want. But when you start falsly attributing it to christian teachings then prepared to get called on it because it is an outright lie. Or would you think it a company teying to collect a post due bill calling itself the international revenue system is the same ss the IRS collecting and pricessing taxes?
It isn't a problem with people caring to help the less fortunate out. It is with people that attempt to conscript others to do the same just so they can wash thier hands of doing it personally or so they can pay less in the process of making it happen. It is odd that most people who think as you do, carry the attitude that yhe pittence they provide in taxes is enough to wash thier guilt away as long as they can force soneone else to do the same.
You are forbiden from to say what ICANN or the police can do. Put a quarter in the mail to show repentence.
See, i can direct people to do things to. I can even report you to slashdot if you do not satisfy my demands.
You are 80% correct. Anyone can demand anything. It doesn't mean they have any authority. ICANN can pull the registrrs authority to sell domains and block their DNS propagation but would likely need more then a cop saying do as i say or else.
You should have remained a christian long enough to know what you are talking about. Your link shows what youvare to do, not what you are to force others to do. And in many cases, it is when you have excess. The government taking and giving so you don't have to is actually depriving you of your oppertunity to do gods work. It is more anti-christian then christian.
As for government sanctioned aid, that is actually part of the problem that causes the need for the welfare state in the first place. At one time, if an employer wanted to keep an employee around, they needed to pay a living wage that could support a family. The employee would otherwise move on unless something underhanded caused him to stay. Now. The employer can pay as little as possible- the minimum wage, because the government will make sure he and his family is able to live.
I'm really having a hard time lately with people arguing that the government should be doing Christian things like help the poor.
I'm not sure what is so christian about you wanting the government to help the poor so you can escape having to do it yourself. Please enlighten me on how this works within the Christian teachings?
This seems to be a play out of the Clinton Hand Book. In the 90's, whenever something appeared to damage Clinton, he would have the military bomb an aspirin factor claiming it was an Al Qaeda training camp or launch Cruise missiles at Iraq for something they have been doing that we finally had enough of.
It usually worked at distracting the people too. People (generally political opponents) even started calling it wag the dog. Hollywood took the idea and made a movie out of it (or perhaps the movie fed the criticism). It might have been coincidence but it definitely was convenient.
Why would you think that? The tea party doesn't run their own platform, they insert their candidates into existing platforms. This is why you have more tea party candidates holding office then you do green party or libertarian or whatever the flavor of the left wants to be at any given time.
It would seem that those idiot tea baggers are outsmarting the system. It that why you dislike them or did they actually tea bag you and send pic about it around your school?
Well, even if the US constitution would apply, it still wouldn't be overturned because of a law passed in the 1960's. Nationality is not protected in the US constitution, just race and everyone with citizenship. The courts would see this law barring Chinese nationals from NASA grounds as an amendment or exception to the civil rights legislation law.
No congress can be bound by a previous congress's actions unless they pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. And that is only limited to another being ratified. Now there can be hurdles like house and senate rules that need to be changed first but the power of congress to legislate is above any law they pass. So lets say if congress passed a rediculous law in 1980 that said everyone must purchase at least two American made teaspoons in their lifetime, and another congress in 2010 passed a law saying you only need to buy one or only need to buy it if you work for the government, the previous requirement of two or everyone would be negated for the enforcement of the new law.
It would take a lot of judicial activism on the part of the judges to overturn the law. Perhaps that is where the courts are headed anyways and you foresee the future. Certainly some people are claiming that is a problem already.
However, I still disagree. To me this still sounds like rationalization of an unreasonable demand to defund Obamacare. The House has attempted 41 times to repeal Obamacare, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge made no serious attempt to remedy the law.
There are so many things wrong with this law, including the premise it provides healthcare when it only provides insurance for a few more people, it is almost unfix-able. This is frustrated in how it was passed and how the supreme court reinterpreted the law in order to keep it constitutional. Now we have the administration making changes to it 17 times through executive order, some of which appears to be completely unconstitutional and at least one state is suing over- one change provides special privileges.
I look at our country, with our unreasonably high costs of medical care, and the fact that the ACA isn't that much different from Republican plans in the past, and can only conclude that Obama's plan isn't great but better than watching Americans go bankrupt because they got sick. I realize there are huge devils in a sea of details but remain optimistic that we can make lives better.
There are a few flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the ACA does nothing to reduce the costs of health care and actually increases the costs of medical devices that might be needed to provide healthcare with a medical device tax. What it does do is decrease the payouts for medicaid and medicare which the medical providers will need to supplement from increased costs to insured patients.
The reason for the high costs of medical care in the first place is because we half assed medicare back in 1965. Congress almost had a heart attach after finding out how much they were spending so they passed the HMO act in 1968 which gave authority of medical care to semi-trained officer clerks and secretaries. They did this in an attempt to control what was being spent by medicare at the time. Not only did the HMO's control the quality of care for the elderly, they also chose the spending levels.
Well, this didn't exactly have the right outcome so the government instituted an average payment schedule and a series of tests to determine if a procedure or specific treatment was needed or not. With this average, the US was divided into 5 specific economic regions and medical procedure costs were collected and averaged over those regions. The government would only pay the average and made a law that if the providers couldn't go after the patient for the difference else they couldn't accept medicare or any government assistance. What this led to was an incentive to jack the costs up. Hirer costs means a higher average. The government then responded with only paying a percentage of the average which enticed the increasing of costs again just to break even with what they really wanted to charge. The Insurance companies had a fit so congress exempted their costs from the averages as they negotiate discounts not available to the general public. This once again, increased costs to the people who were not covered by insurance or a government aid program.
Second, the biggest problem with it looking similar to republican proposals of the past is that those proposals never became law. Comparing something that didn't become law to something that is regarded as bad law is a bit of a misnomer.
Third, the Obama plan doesn't really stop people from going bankrupt. The problem with bankruptcy is that you need a reason to file other then you went shopping to often. The biggest or easier reason to file is because you have a substantial loss of income which usually happens when you get large medical bills. The medical bills themselves isn't what bankrupts people, it is the loss of income a person has after spending months off the job. The affordable care act does nothing to remedy this.
Finally, and this probably should be construed as a counter point, there are some things in the ACA that are actua
They've reversed those policies as they weren't working. And you remember that power crisis California had a few years ago? It came about because it deregulated the power companies, and let them shut down operations for no reason, forcing California to buy power from out of state resources at premium rates.
Wrong..The rolling blackouts came because companies involved in supplying CA with energy were corruptly manipulating the markets. They decreased supply artificially in order to inflate prices causing a shortage that didn't exist. Enron was convicted of purposely flowing pipelines at half capacity claiming they were saving infrastructure costs. The deregulation allowed part of it to happen but it was only because of a partial deregulation that it could happen. Deregulation does not mean failure to enforce laws or carte blanche to defraud an entire state.
As for the leaving California for Texas, quite a few of the businesses are doing that and I'm sure quite a bit of the population is following. It might not be as much as the population replacements but it is happening.
More like Nationality instead of race. However, Foreign nationals are not typically privileged to all aspects of US law.
Besides, a previous law cannot bar a future law from being passed if they are on the same legislative hierarchy (State verses state, federal verses federal). Only a constitutional amendment can do that and it is limited insofar as another constitutional amendment can undo it. The courts will likely ignore it.
Not really, the US spying and crap of more internal governmental information. The Chinese hackers are gathering and using this information to directly economically compete with us.
Interesting, so you decided that what you perceive as personal attacks are superior to arguing facts about what has been said. I guess no matter what you think of me or what I post, I can sleep comfortably knowing I am always a couple rungs higher then you.
I think you are confused a bit. The interstates were originally funded by taxes on fuel purchased. This tax money is now spent on other things as well so from time to time money from outside funds need to be allotted.
As for the speed, the federal government has absolutely no authority to pass a law concerning the speed limits. The interstates were turned over to the states during the construction and outside certain dimensions and load bearing requirements required for military use and interstate commerce (tanks and trucks baby), the only way the feds can require something is by withholding funding. Of course this gets even more difficult since the supreme court rules that the feds couldn't withhold existing funding based on a state's willingness to adopt or implement something, they would have to withhold additional funding to do so. They really were upset about Montana not having a specific speed limit for the longest of time. It wasn't until recently it was more then "reasonable and prudent". Kind of like the American autobahn.
Oh, the feds can regulate the speed limits of trucks engaged in interstate commerce to a degree. But that's more of an exception then a rule.
Planned or not is pretty important. What happens when the government controls your health care or your insurance company's ability to pay for it and another tantrum goes into effect. Will an administration restrict health care in order to get their point across and demonize those that disagree with them?
Law will not go away if the organization enforcing them does. It takes an act of congress to remove laws. To think they would automagically disappear with a smaller government is silly. All those agency regulations would remain without the agency. The difference is that Congress would have to actually pass laws concerning what they regulate instead of bucking it off to a political appointee under the control of only one branch of government.
Slashdot Mirror
You are ignoring what happened. You linl to a disgruntled ex employee pushong a book snd an opinion piece in the op-ed section of the NYT that is long on "i've seen this but you havn't"and short on your claim of bush's motivation outside of opinion. Here is a word of wisdom that will serve you well in life. Opinion is not fact. Even if opinion is factually correct, it is still opinion about facts and not fact.
If you did not dismiss history, you would remember that even under Clinton, IRAQ and Saddam was seen as the single largest threat to the US for more than a decade before bush took office. For all the information you presented, Bush'S WAR STANCE with Iraq could very well be the difference between his policies of using the military and force as apposed to clinton's reliance on lae enforcement and procecutions. That certainly seems more supportive of all the availible evidence.
Here is a thought experiment for you. If bush and iraq was as you say, then why didn't he invade Iraq right after 9/11 and then once in war say "opps my bad, we are here so we need to finish now"? I mean seriously, the athirization for use of force did not limit him to afghanistan or al qeada or the taliban. He could have easily invaded Iraq and simply said he had bad inteligence after the fact. That's the problem, instead of doing something like that, he laid out all the intelifence we had, went to the UN, then convinced congress that the threat of terrorism and iraq's unaccoubted wmds made it in our best interest to invade. And before you jump to the "but there were no wmds" read the war resolution for iraq. It did not say there had to be wmds.
Again, comprehension. I never said i was against all welfate. I was against pretending it was a biblical obligation or christian teaching. That is my biggest contention with the comment on it.
I see you worked in national healthcare too. Just to kick the can a bit, im not against that either. I have some serious problems with hoe they are trying to do it though.
Comprehension my friend. If you lack it, find someone near you and have them read and explain my posts. Welfare allows busineses to pay less than a living wage and keep employees because the government makes it up.
Now, where in the bible does it teach that you ae to take from others, that you are to force people to do something they wouldn't already do, where in the christian teaching does it say anything about forcing anyone to fo something. All there seems to be is passages that show concequences for actions or inaction. Ig you look in yhe old testament (the jewish portion) you will see several examples of this.
You are arguing why the welfare state should exist and why christians could continue following their teachings if anything is left over. You ae not arguing that christian teachings support welfare yet you want to conflate them as the same despite the christian teachings saying it is your personal responsability to fo those works, not your srceetary's or the governments. The differnce is enormouse in the sense of salvation and your relationship with God. You are saying in essence, let us do your godly works for you, it is the christian way when it is nowhere close to it. You are in essence saying there us an engine and a door, it must be a care when it is a generator for backup electrical supply- then when told you are wrong, you insist it is still a car despite not having a drivetrain or a steering wheel.
Btw, I,m posting from a phone due to traveling. Thanks for being readonable about the spelling and grammar issues that i know is plaguing my post when posting from my phone.
Yes, because when all availible facts and logic have to be ignored to support your concept, it makes it the most sane possability.
All that so called education and you still are that ignorany. Hmm. I don't know what to tell you other then you failed to learn anything. The bible and the pasages you referenced are about your personal duty not you passing it off to your secretary or govrrnment to fo in your stead. You claim is like saying having sex for procreational reasons is child molestation because sex and a child are involved in the concept. You ae simply wrong.
You also do not need to belive in god or the christian teaching in order to accurately portrey them.
I think you have a serious problem with intelectual honesty. I have not said that taxes are bad or anything of the sort and even if i did, that wouldn't preclude me from supporting limited taxes for limited government services like police and fire or whatever else i thought was neccesary. However, you will not find me going around under the misguided and improper understanding of god wanted it that way because it followd the christian teaching that you somehow failed to grasp. If your comprehension was as great as your desie to distort the christian teaching to fit your own political ideology, you would note that outsiee of showing how government welfare has damaged society causing the need for more if it, the only thing i objected to was your incorect asignment if chtistian teaching yo yhe welfae state. If course i don't think we would be having this discussion if comprehension and intelectusl honesty wasn't an issue wiyh you.
Bill clinton was planning the same. There is no secrete about contingency plans on the table concerning Iraq. Iraq was the biggest problem to the US at the time before 9/11.
What is fraudulent is the revisionist history assigning motive when common sense showd otherwise.
Wow- just wow. You sure are deranged an revising history in order to support some ideology that can't otherwise survive.
First, all to so called intel we had did not say anything specific enough to identify 9/11 nor the date or times it would happen without the hindsight if it actually happening. Second, if iraq were as you said, then we would have invaded right after 9/11- 2001, not wait two and a half years to make a bunch of statements before invading on a separate war resolution in 2003. If it were as you stated, we would have simply went in after the authorization for use of force for Afghanistan and said our bad, we made a mistake when the rest of the world called us on it. Instead, a separate case was made, it relied mostly on the same intel that previous presidents an thier supporters used, the same intel the rest of the world had, and outside France who had secrete oil deals which leveraged UN sanctions to make them lucrative, the rest of the world either thought iraq was contained and invasion was premature or that certain pieces of inteligence were creditable enough for sanctions but not invasion at the start of the war.
You are out of touch with reality here.
Look up the first red scare and the communist activities in the US circa 1919. You sre correct that in recent times, comunist have not done anything violent in the US but rhat wasn't always the case.
Not that this detracts from your point or anything. It is just a little perspective.
The house has passed the exact same sane bills that would be in a clean cr excep separated from a single cr.
How that is not sane is beyond me. Please explain what you think is sane.
You did not show any christian teachings on government welfare though. You showed the personal obligations within the christian teachings.
Yiu can't be assed to learn anyrhing about it so perhaps you shouldn't pretend to know about it.
As far as welfare and taxes in general, you can belive anything you want. But when you start falsly attributing it to christian teachings then prepared to get called on it because it is an outright lie. Or would you think it a company teying to collect a post due bill calling itself the international revenue system is the same ss the IRS collecting and pricessing taxes?
It isn't a problem with people caring to help the less fortunate out. It is with people that attempt to conscript others to do the same just so they can wash thier hands of doing it personally or so they can pay less in the process of making it happen. It is odd that most people who think as you do, carry the attitude that yhe pittence they provide in taxes is enough to wash thier guilt away as long as they can force soneone else to do the same.
You are forbiden from to say what ICANN or the police can do. Put a quarter in the mail to show repentence.
See, i can direct people to do things to. I can even report you to slashdot if you do not satisfy my demands.
You are 80% correct. Anyone can demand anything. It doesn't mean they have any authority. ICANN can pull the registrrs authority to sell domains and block their DNS propagation but would likely need more then a cop saying do as i say or else.
You should have remained a christian long enough to know what you are talking about. Your link shows what youvare to do, not what you are to force others to do. And in many cases, it is when you have excess. The government taking and giving so you don't have to is actually depriving you of your oppertunity to do gods work. It is more anti-christian then christian.
As for government sanctioned aid, that is actually part of the problem that causes the need for the welfare state in the first place. At one time, if an employer wanted to keep an employee around, they needed to pay a living wage that could support a family. The employee would otherwise move on unless something underhanded caused him to stay. Now. The employer can pay as little as possible- the minimum wage, because the government will make sure he and his family is able to live.
I'm not sure what is so christian about you wanting the government to help the poor so you can escape having to do it yourself. Please enlighten me on how this works within the Christian teachings?
This seems to be a play out of the Clinton Hand Book. In the 90's, whenever something appeared to damage Clinton, he would have the military bomb an aspirin factor claiming it was an Al Qaeda training camp or launch Cruise missiles at Iraq for something they have been doing that we finally had enough of.
It usually worked at distracting the people too. People (generally political opponents) even started calling it wag the dog. Hollywood took the idea and made a movie out of it (or perhaps the movie fed the criticism). It might have been coincidence but it definitely was convenient.
Why would you think that? The tea party doesn't run their own platform, they insert their candidates into existing platforms. This is why you have more tea party candidates holding office then you do green party or libertarian or whatever the flavor of the left wants to be at any given time.
It would seem that those idiot tea baggers are outsmarting the system. It that why you dislike them or did they actually tea bag you and send pic about it around your school?
Well, even if the US constitution would apply, it still wouldn't be overturned because of a law passed in the 1960's. Nationality is not protected in the US constitution, just race and everyone with citizenship. The courts would see this law barring Chinese nationals from NASA grounds as an amendment or exception to the civil rights legislation law.
No congress can be bound by a previous congress's actions unless they pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. And that is only limited to another being ratified. Now there can be hurdles like house and senate rules that need to be changed first but the power of congress to legislate is above any law they pass. So lets say if congress passed a rediculous law in 1980 that said everyone must purchase at least two American made teaspoons in their lifetime, and another congress in 2010 passed a law saying you only need to buy one or only need to buy it if you work for the government, the previous requirement of two or everyone would be negated for the enforcement of the new law.
It would take a lot of judicial activism on the part of the judges to overturn the law. Perhaps that is where the courts are headed anyways and you foresee the future. Certainly some people are claiming that is a problem already.
There are so many things wrong with this law, including the premise it provides healthcare when it only provides insurance for a few more people, it is almost unfix-able. This is frustrated in how it was passed and how the supreme court reinterpreted the law in order to keep it constitutional. Now we have the administration making changes to it 17 times through executive order, some of which appears to be completely unconstitutional and at least one state is suing over- one change provides special privileges.
There are a few flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the ACA does nothing to reduce the costs of health care and actually increases the costs of medical devices that might be needed to provide healthcare with a medical device tax. What it does do is decrease the payouts for medicaid and medicare which the medical providers will need to supplement from increased costs to insured patients.
The reason for the high costs of medical care in the first place is because we half assed medicare back in 1965. Congress almost had a heart attach after finding out how much they were spending so they passed the HMO act in 1968 which gave authority of medical care to semi-trained officer clerks and secretaries. They did this in an attempt to control what was being spent by medicare at the time. Not only did the HMO's control the quality of care for the elderly, they also chose the spending levels.
Well, this didn't exactly have the right outcome so the government instituted an average payment schedule and a series of tests to determine if a procedure or specific treatment was needed or not. With this average, the US was divided into 5 specific economic regions and medical procedure costs were collected and averaged over those regions. The government would only pay the average and made a law that if the providers couldn't go after the patient for the difference else they couldn't accept medicare or any government assistance. What this led to was an incentive to jack the costs up. Hirer costs means a higher average. The government then responded with only paying a percentage of the average which enticed the increasing of costs again just to break even with what they really wanted to charge. The Insurance companies had a fit so congress exempted their costs from the averages as they negotiate discounts not available to the general public. This once again, increased costs to the people who were not covered by insurance or a government aid program.
Second, the biggest problem with it looking similar to republican proposals of the past is that those proposals never became law. Comparing something that didn't become law to something that is regarded as bad law is a bit of a misnomer.
Third, the Obama plan doesn't really stop people from going bankrupt. The problem with bankruptcy is that you need a reason to file other then you went shopping to often. The biggest or easier reason to file is because you have a substantial loss of income which usually happens when you get large medical bills. The medical bills themselves isn't what bankrupts people, it is the loss of income a person has after spending months off the job. The affordable care act does nothing to remedy this.
Finally, and this probably should be construed as a counter point, there are some things in the ACA that are actua
Wrong..The rolling blackouts came because companies involved in supplying CA with energy were corruptly manipulating the markets. They decreased supply artificially in order to inflate prices causing a shortage that didn't exist. Enron was convicted of purposely flowing pipelines at half capacity claiming they were saving infrastructure costs. The deregulation allowed part of it to happen but it was only because of a partial deregulation that it could happen. Deregulation does not mean failure to enforce laws or carte blanche to defraud an entire state.
As for the leaving California for Texas, quite a few of the businesses are doing that and I'm sure quite a bit of the population is following. It might not be as much as the population replacements but it is happening.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/why-are-californias-businesses-disappearing
http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html
There are also several counties trying to secede from California. I guess the ultimate plan is to form a new state called Jefferson.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/26/california-counties-vote-secede-golden-state/
More like Nationality instead of race. However, Foreign nationals are not typically privileged to all aspects of US law.
Besides, a previous law cannot bar a future law from being passed if they are on the same legislative hierarchy (State verses state, federal verses federal). Only a constitutional amendment can do that and it is limited insofar as another constitutional amendment can undo it. The courts will likely ignore it.
Not really, the US spying and crap of more internal governmental information. The Chinese hackers are gathering and using this information to directly economically compete with us.
Interesting, so you decided that what you perceive as personal attacks are superior to arguing facts about what has been said. I guess no matter what you think of me or what I post, I can sleep comfortably knowing I am always a couple rungs higher then you.
I think you are confused a bit. The interstates were originally funded by taxes on fuel purchased. This tax money is now spent on other things as well so from time to time money from outside funds need to be allotted.
As for the speed, the federal government has absolutely no authority to pass a law concerning the speed limits. The interstates were turned over to the states during the construction and outside certain dimensions and load bearing requirements required for military use and interstate commerce (tanks and trucks baby), the only way the feds can require something is by withholding funding. Of course this gets even more difficult since the supreme court rules that the feds couldn't withhold existing funding based on a state's willingness to adopt or implement something, they would have to withhold additional funding to do so. They really were upset about Montana not having a specific speed limit for the longest of time. It wasn't until recently it was more then "reasonable and prudent". Kind of like the American autobahn.
Oh, the feds can regulate the speed limits of trucks engaged in interstate commerce to a degree. But that's more of an exception then a rule.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are clambering for one right now so a large powerful government doesn't seem to help a lot.
I would guess that Miley Cirus imitating porn on TV is doing more to calm the masses then the federal government could.
Planned or not is pretty important. What happens when the government controls your health care or your insurance company's ability to pay for it and another tantrum goes into effect. Will an administration restrict health care in order to get their point across and demonize those that disagree with them?
Law will not go away if the organization enforcing them does. It takes an act of congress to remove laws. To think they would automagically disappear with a smaller government is silly. All those agency regulations would remain without the agency. The difference is that Congress would have to actually pass laws concerning what they regulate instead of bucking it off to a political appointee under the control of only one branch of government.
Lol.. Last I heard, she was already upset over the shutdown causing her to tween less.
http://www.infowars.com/less-tweets-due-to-govt-shutdown-first-lady-tells-legion-of-fake-followers/