PDA

View Full Version : More GOP whining


Rigs11
07-08-2013, 10:51 AM
The righties hate obamacare, even though it was based on conservative ideas, they want it repealed!it wil hurt businesses! then obama delays provision and they still complain.:rofl:



Republicans challenge authority to delay, 'ignore' ObamaCare provision


House Republicans are escalating their scrutiny of the decision to delay a key part of the health care overhaul, questioning whether the Obama administration even has the authority to "ignore the law" without the approval of Congress.

The administration announced early last week that it was delaying by one year a requirement that large employers offer access to health insurance. Officials described the delay as a common-sense concession to businesses who complained the rules were too onerous, and maintained the Treasury Department was within its right.

A Treasury official told FoxNews.com that the move was "an exercise of the administrative authority" under the IRS code. The official said the department has "longstanding" authority to "grant transition relief when implementing new legislation" like the health care law.

A number of Republicans pointed to the sudden change as a sign of problems to come with the massive health care law. But, as lawmakers return on Monday from the holiday break, they're also challenging whether the tweak was an abuse of power.

"This action raises a lot of questions about whether the Obama administration can simply ignore the law when it's convenient for them," Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., said in a statement.

He said he's asked the Congressional Research Service to "investigate" that issue -- "because I don't think any president has the authority to pick and choose what parts of law to follow."

The matter will get an airing on Capitol Hill later this week. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of a House Ways and Means subcommittee, has set a hearing for July 10 which, in part, will examine the issue of the administration's authority to change the law.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, went a step further, describing the move as "another in a string of extra legal actions taken" by the Obama administration.

The complaint about the administration's authority is just one of several Republicans have regarding the move to delay the mandate. They question whether more delays and changes are in store in the run-up to the Jan. 1 launch of many of the law's major provisions. They question why the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on individuals to buy health insurance -- wasn't also delayed.

But the Treasury Department and White House, in announcing the delay last week, explained that they did so after businesses complained about the reporting requirements. As the administration moves to simplify the rules, they said, they would in turn give businesses more time to comply.

"We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so," Mark J. Mazur, the assistant secretary for Tax Policy at the Department of the Treasury, said last week on the Treasury blog.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/republicans-challenge-authority-to-delay-ignore-obamacare-provision/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2YTQnBVSE

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 12:06 PM
Not surprised you missed the point. The point is can a President take a law passed by Congress, and then just change what he wants when he wants. The question is what precedent does that set?

Obama uses this relatively new theory of executive actions. Not orders that have a set way of being handled but rather just an action where he calls a govt agency and tells them what he wants them to do.

He tells treasury dept to delay a provision of Obama care so they do it for him. Do you want that precedent set? Obama has expanded Presidential powers in a scary way.

How about Congress passes a tax cut, but the President just orders the IRS to delay it. Or the President tells the IRS to delay a tax raise, it could go either way. The thing is if Congress passes, the President signs into law, can we then have a President who just changes the law after the fact?

houghtam
07-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Not surprised you missed the point. The point is can a President take a law passed by Congress, and then just change what he wants when he wants. The question is what precedent does that set?

Obama uses this relatively new theory of executive actions. Not orders that have a set way of being handled but rather just an action where he calls a govt agency and tells them what he wants them to do.

He tells treasury dept to delay a provision of Obama care so they do it for him. Do you want that precedent set? Obama has expanded Presidential powers in a scary way.

How about Congress passes a tax cut, but the President just orders the IRS to delay it. Or the President tells the IRS to delay a tax raise, it could go either way. The thing is if Congress passes, the President signs into law, can we then have a President who just changes the law after the fact?

No different than selective enforcement, which is neither new nor has it really been considered a bad thing until recently.

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 01:10 PM
No different than selective enforcement, which is neither new nor has it really been considered a bad thing until recently.

Why pass any laws at all then?

houghtam
07-08-2013, 01:11 PM
Why pass any laws at all then?

Ask your elected executive branch, leaders in selective enforcement since 1787.

Rigs11
07-08-2013, 03:56 PM
Cutthead wins again:rofl:

Legal group accuses Bush of selective enforcement - Americas - International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON The American Bar Association has said that President George W. Bush is flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills he signed.

In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said that Bush had used so-called signing statements far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

In the ABA panel report released Sunday, members said that these broad assertions of presidential power amount to a line-item veto and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto.

For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/americas/24iht-bar.2280701.html?_r=0

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 04:03 PM
No it just shows that our govt is dysfunctional and Obama expanding on powers Bush also abused.

houghtam
07-08-2013, 04:31 PM
No it just shows that our govt is dysfunctional and Obama expanding on powers Bush also abused.

No it shows that selective enforcement has been used by every president. Obama isn't expanding on it, you're just mad because you disagree with what he's being selective on.

Butthurt much?

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 06:22 PM
No it shows that selective enforcement has been used by every president. Obama isn't expanding on it, you're just mad because you disagree with what he's being selective on.

Butthurt much?

No i am glad he is delaying his horrid Obamacare. He has probably seen the numbers at this point and realizes his whole healthcare overhaul is unworkable. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time we have a new president its still not working. At that point I guess a repub pres could just selectively not enforce the mandate and the whole joke of an episode will be over.

In fact I would bet Obama himself postpones the individual mandate. No way the states will have all the exchanges running for people to purchase insurance.

CLUSTER****!

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 06:24 PM
You should be the one thats upset houghtam not me.

houghtam
07-08-2013, 07:28 PM
You should be the one thats upset houghtam not me.

If you shouldn't be upset, then why are you?

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 07:46 PM
You should be upset because someone you thought would lead you has proven to be a false hope. He is setting your party back and ruining its credibility.

2014 baby its going to be a hoot and we are going to have a great time arguing politics!

houghtam
07-08-2013, 07:53 PM
You should be upset because someone you thought would lead you has proven to be a false hope. He is setting your party back and ruining its credibility.

2014 baby its going to be a hoot and we are going to have a great time arguing politics!

Yes, much like Einstein would have arguing his theory of relativity with a gnat.

You are a mental midget, and are likely a homeless person who posts from the library.

Go take a shower in the McDonalds handicapped stall.

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 08:08 PM
Yes, much like Einstein would have arguing his theory of relativity with a gnat.

You are a mental midget, and are likely a homeless person who posts from the library.

Go take a shower in the McDonalds handicapped stall.

Wierd cause i really like you.

houghtam
07-08-2013, 08:12 PM
Wierd cause i really like you.

It would never work, because you fail to meet all three of my criteria for a relationship:

1) Intelligence and the ability to think critically
2) Being a woman
3) Having parents who aren't first cousins

SoCalBronco
07-08-2013, 08:15 PM
How bout less insults and more discussion?

cutthemdown
07-08-2013, 08:42 PM
It would never work, because you fail to meet all three of my criteria for a relationship:

1) Intelligence and the ability to think critically
2) Being a woman
3) Having parents who aren't first cousins

I guess this explains why you and your brother don't get along.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-08-2013, 09:08 PM
It would never work, because you fail to meet all three of my criteria for a relationship:

1) Intelligence and the ability to think critically
2) Being a woman
3) Having parents who aren't first cousins

:rofl::thumbs: ^5

cutthemdown
07-09-2013, 01:46 PM
:rofl::thumbs: ^5

So you think its cool to say my parents were incestous?

cutthemdown
07-09-2013, 01:47 PM
How bout less insults and more discussion?

especially since it crosses the line and he is saying my parents were incestous.