Answer: Iraq invasion
Obama is to Obamacare as Reagan is to:
Obama is to Obamacare as LBJ is to:
And, Ironside, just to point out a minor point - the debt limit extension will not give the president a trillion dollars in unobligated funds. The debt limit has to be raised to fund existing obligations previously set by Congress (and, no, despite your fervent wishes, all of those obligations were not incurred by Democrats only.)
I agree: Obama "lied" about the Affordable Care Act. We agree on that point. There are, however, a few points where we disagree. Bryant pointed out one: the debt limit is only for specific bills that we already owe, not new ones as you suggest. Additionally, the ACA won't create a situation where employer sponsored health care will be supplanted by ACA policies unless (1)these plans are a sham to begin with or (2)companies find it more profitable for themselves to discontinue insurance as a compensation benefit. One other point to be raised concerns who makes health care decisions. Right now these decisions are not totally between the doctor and the patient, but involve your for profit insurance company and what they will pay for. If you have a broken hip, your current insurance company makes the determination of how long they will pay for hospitalization and rehabilitation. Any additional time becomes your expense. The ACA mandates what policies must cover and connects (when the stupidly designed website works)individuals with these same for profit insurance companies. Regards, Spellbound.
Reguarding the debt ceiling, your explanation is correct if you are talking about every President but this one. Obama has never had a budget and the government has used Continuing Resolutions to fund the government.Those CR's have not added more money to run the governmentsence 2009, yet President Obama has added 7 Trillion Dollars of additional spending. He got this addition money when he got his Trillion dollars in 2009 for his Stimulious Package. That additional Trillion has remained in the Federal Budget each year sence 2009. The reason he does not have this year's extra Trillion Dollars is because Congress only passed a short term extention. He will spend close to another Trillion dollars to provide sudsidies to his supporters so they pay little or nothing for their healthcare. Today, there are several stories about the testimoney of Henry Choa, before a Congressional Sub-committee yesterday. The stories highlight that the Obamacare Payment System still needs to be built. The Obama Administration can not finalize this Payment System because he needs money to give the subsidies. Your comment on any Insurance company makes the determination of how long they will pay for hospitalization and rehabilitation is what the policyholder wanted covered and what the policyholder was willing to pay. The company will cover almost anything providing the policy holder is willing to pay for it. Another statement used to sell Obamacare was people with a pre-existing condition could not get insurance.That was not true. Anyone could get insurance for a pre-existing condition. The cost would be high because the Insurance Company would have to factor in the average cost per year to cover the treatment for that condition, and add that cost to any of their Health Insuance Policies. Insurance Companies are in the business to provide coverage and continue that coverage. Cancelling policies cause them the lose money. The current cancelltions of policies is government driven because of the Obamacare Law. Insurance Companies are complying with the law, which is more than can be said for the President.
Ironside, you need to research your assertions more carefully. The stimulus package, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was a one time action. There is no continuing allocation of one trillion dollars each year. Since its enactment in February 2009, $811.9B has been paid out.
Your assertion is false.
So, how has President Obama increased the National debt by over 7 Trillion dollar? He has never had any of his proposed budgets passed by Congress. His first budget was rejected by all of the members of his own party! The government has been running on CR's sence 2009? So, how did he increase the National Debt?
The Federal Government spent the following:
2008 2.983 Trillion Last Bush Budget that included the cost of the War.
2009 3.518 Trillion Obama's first year that includes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act $811.9B.
2010 3.456 Trillion that includes savings from draw down in Iraq. Where is the reduction of the war savings and the one time $811.9B from the Stimulus package in the spending level.
2011 3.819 Trillion
2012 3.537 that includes savings in reduced military because of Obama's draw down and final pullout of Iraq.
2013 3.8 is the projected figure that will end the year. It also includes savings from military draw down in Afganastan and savings from the Sequester.
So, you are correct that the stimulus package was By Law a one time action. Yet Obamas budgets have never gone back to the 2008 level that was also inflated to meet the cost of the war. Obama has had over an extra Trillion dollars each of his five years in office. He has used most of this extra money the to dramadically increase the size of the Federal Government hiring hundreds of thousands of new Federal Government employees at salaries and benifit packages that average 84K. Now he needs money to save Obamacare by providing subsities. The short term debt ceiling extention doesn't give him the amount he needs. There will be a huge fight next month for a full extention thru the end of 2014.
Finally, let me quote from the Declaration of Independence which documents what King George III was doing to the Colonies. "He has erected a mulitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance"
Ironside, once again your assertion, "He has used most of this extra money the to dramadically increase the size of the Federal Government hiring hundreds of thousands of new Federal Government employees at salaries and benifit packages that average 84K.', is false. Federal Civilian employment is down by 18.000 from 2009, excluding temporary hires for the 2010 census.
And, I hate to point out that the relevance of King George III's actions to our current situation with elected representatives is nil.
I believe our military reductions account for the overall reduction figure you site. My reference to the Declaration of Independence points out what happens in government when there are no checks and balances. Makes no difference whether it was George III or our politicions in Washington today. Today The Democrats went nuclear on the Republicans and changed the Filibuster rule that has stood the test of time for the entire history of the Senate till today. Another check and balance in our government trampled by Democrats. Our Republic was wounded today.
Ironside, once again let me correct your erroneous assertions. First, the reduction I cited in Federal employment was civilian employees only - no military was involved. Second, the filibuster rule you cite as, "(standing) the test of time for the entire history of the Senate till today* is not correct. The filibuster rule as it existed until yesterday was in effect for about 95 years - not since the creation of the Senate.
And checks and balances still exist. That's one of the reasons we do not have a budget. Nor immmigration reform.
Politics is a nasty business. I could discuss the filibuster "rule" that was changed in the Democratic majority Senate, but I thought I'd mention the Republican House's suspension of regular rules of order. Since the Republicans passed this measure, Boehner and Cantor are the only representatives who can present a bill for a vote on the House floor. If these two choose not to present an immigration bill for a vote, there will be no action on that bill. The Senate's immigration bill? It will never see the light of day. During the shutdown, any passed Senate plan stood no chance for a vote. Just like Reid dismissed the House's Continuing Resolution in the Senate, Boehner road blocked the Senate plan. A pox on both their houses.
Please give your source for the reduction in Fed employees. As for the filibuster:
The first Congress had a “previous question motion” rule which could be used to continue debate for as long as a Senator or group of Senators used it. Aaron Burr argued that the rule was redundant and wasted the Senate’s time and that new and better rules needed to be written. The Senate in 1806 wrote new rules that did not provide any way to cut off debate, thus creating the potential for a filibuster. No Senator tried to block a call of a vote by continuing the debate until 1837, when the first filibuster took place. In 1917 the Wilson Socialist Democrats tried to get a Senate rule requiring 51 votes to stop debate and a call for a vote. They compromised with the Republicans and established the Senate rule of 60 votes to stop debate. That rule stood till yesterday. However, the filibuster (continuing debate to stop a vote has been a part of the Senate in one form or another since the first Congress.
Harry Reid has sole control in the Senate on what bills will come to the floor for debate and votes. I do not believe in what was done in the House. Remember our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect the "Individual's Rights" from government taking them away. That is why the Constitution has the Bill of Rights. Our Founders believed that the government should move slowly and deliberately. They wanted it to be very hard to pass laws and the greater the majority, both Parties voting for the law, the better the law would be for the American People. Our Founders warned us about Political Parties. They did not believe they would focus on the needs of ALL the people, but rather focus on Party agenda to stay in control of the government.
Your site provides the following:
1. 2008 Bush's last year 4,206K
2011 Obama's 3rd year 4,403K
increase includes military for Afgan Surge of 133K, leaving 64K increase of Excutive Branch employees.
2. Your site does not have figures for 2012 or what 2013 will be. Those figures will show the steady growth of government civilian employees.
So, Ironside, since my site is official and ends in 2011 (I would not make up numbers for the sake of a debate), where do you get your numbers for 2012 and 2013?
Forgot one thing - the military did not hire 133,000 for the Afghan surge. The majority of those troops were already on board and trained. For another comparison, try Forbes magazine (not exactly a bastion of liberal politics)