I think this should go in this topic I think the founders meant that we should establish a national game whereby a nimble goat would be named 'happiness' and we should all 'pursue'' it. Makes sense right? I mean the 'words' are all there... They probably just didn't have the right goats way back then.
I know it's a blanket statement, but what do you hear from conservative politicians since 1994 that is anything but scorn for government, it's agencies and burecrats? Serisouly.
The only thing more ridiculous than Wilson's excitement here is the comment crediting "Governor" Palin for the "repeal."
There Are Now 27 States Challenging the Constitutionality of ObamaCare Peter Suderman Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:17:00 AM Share The House voted to repeal the health care overhaul yesterday in a move that was, as The Wall Street Journal says, symbolic but not entirely meaningless. Ultimately, though, it's unlikely to result in any direct, substantive changes to the law. Thanks to the White House's veto power, Congress won’t be able to repeal the law before the next election. But that doesn't mean it's safe. Court challenges present a real threat to its continued existence. That’s why it’s worth noting that on the same day the House voted to repeal the law, six additional states joined the ongoing multi-state lawsuit against the health care overhaul: Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Wyoming and Maine won permission to join a Florida lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health-care reform legislation. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, yesterday granted the states’ motion for permission to be added to the lawsuit filed last year by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollom, bringing the total of plaintiff states to 26. With Virginia, which is involved in a separate suit, this brings the total number of states challenging the federal overhaul to 27. I'm not convinced that the legal challenges have a better than 50-50 shot to prevail, but they do have some chance. Meanwhile, the courts are likely to at least be aware of the size of the opposition to the law: More than half the state governments have taken legal action against it. More of the public disapproves of the law than approves of it. And a majority in one chamber of congress has voted to repeal it. http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/t...Online+-+Hit+&+Run+Blog)&utm_content=Netvibes The Repeal Vote An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. The Wall Street Journal JANUARY 20, 2011 Democrats are deriding last night's House vote to repeal ObamaCare as "symbolic," and it was, but that is not the same as meaningless. The stunning political reality is that a new entitlement that was supposed to be a landmark of liberal governance has been repudiated by a majority of one chamber of Congress only 10 months after it passed. This sort of thing never happens. More House Members—245 in total—voted to rescind the new entitlement than the 219 Democrats who voted to create it last March. That partisan majority narrowly prevailed over all 178 Republicans and some 38 Democrats. The three Democrats who favored repeal yesterday confirmed the bipartisan opposition to the kind of vast new social program that historically has been built on a national bipartisan consensus. Republicans across the country campaigned on repeal last year, and yesterday's vote showed refreshing respect for the often invoked, rarely consulted American people. Meanwhile, six additional states have asked to join the momentous constitutional challenge to ObamaCare in Florida, bringing the total to 26, plus Virginia's separate suit. A majority of states resisting this mandate is another "symbolic" threshold. It's also telling that even many Democrats are now bowing to the public mood, conceding that the law needs fixing even if they oppose outright repeal. No less than President Obama declared that "I'm willing and eager to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act. But we can't go backward." House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday that Democrats are "open to better ideas." These feints toward conciliation would be more convincing if Harry Reid were willing to bring the repeal bill to the Senate floor. No doubt the Majority Leader fears defections when Republicans eventually do force an up-or-down vote, especially among the many vulnerable red-state Democrats standing for re-election in 2012. The retirement of North Dakota's Kent Conrad, the self-styled deficit hawk who voted for this fiscal disaster, may be a portent. Various liberal sages chimed in with a prediction/hope that repeal will backfire on Republicans, usually based on outlier polls like those produced by the Kaiser Family Foundation. These are the same wise men who after Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate upset a year ago importuned Democrats to pass the bill anyway. They claimed it would be a political winner, eventually, once voters were hooked up to subsidized coverage. But such spin can't overcome the reality of premium increases and other damage in the insurance market that consumers can see in their own paychecks and that will only grow. Recall that reform was sold as a way to control costs and increase consumer choice. But underlying medical costs continue to climb, carrying premiums aloft in tandem. Even a nonprofit insurer like Blue Shield of California, a reliable lobbyist for progressive causes, says it must raise rates by as much as 59%, in part to comply with ObamaCare's mandates. The law's central planning has also set off a wave of health-industry consolidation that is already reshaping medicine as providers try to shelter themselves from political risk. A Thompson Reuters survey released this week found that 65% of physicians believe the quality of care will deteriorate over the next five years, with only 18% thinking it will improve. Republicans could have done better in yesterday's debate by focusing more on this deterioration in choice and quality, rather than so much on the (admittedly real) harm to jobs and the federal deficit. The GOP does need to craft a reform alternative based on competition and market incentives that is more than a return to the status quo ante. And while "repeal and replace" can't happen as long as Mr. Obama wields veto power, yesterday's vote sent an important signal to voters that ObamaCare can't be fixed at the margins when it is so destructive at its core. Next up: defunding the law's implementation and repealing some of its more pernicious parts.
Is this rtsy guy just a script set up to auto-post news articles? I don't think I've ever seen an original thought in one of his/its posts.
Be thankful. When he does post original thoughts they are esteban-esque with a slight Ron Paul tinge.
I'm pretty positive that the actual number of people behind the loyal opposition on the right around here isn't nearly as big as the number of User ID's associated with it, and probably includes some from the other side as well.
Only a slight Ron Paul tinge? I wouldn't be surprised if he posts a video from Ron addressing the issue himself.
Why is medicare a product but social security not? One's an insurance policy the other is an investment or whatever.
I think the point is that social security is a truly socialist product, where you pay the government and the government hands out benefits. The insurance mandate had the misfortune of trying to leverage the power of free markets by having private companies provide the product and allow competition to make it efficient. So, it's not a tax since it isn't a single-payer system -- a system Obama initially wanted, but that he compromised on as a concession to Republicans. If they had gone single-payer run by the government, critics would not be able to bring this constitutional challenge at all. And, to add to the irony of it all, if the Republicans were allowed to do what they wanted with Social Security (besides abolishing it altogether, which is political suicide), they would privatize it to leverage the market and create a system that looks much like HCR itself is structured to look.
