Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I have reservations about the Healthcare bill especially the lack of a public option to ensure real competition. I'm afraid insurance companies will just do like oil companies and collude to raise prices as they wish, in spite of the exchanges formed to ensure competition. Still, it's a decent start and with all the misinformation thrown by conservatives about government healthcare, this is all we could realistically expect now.
What really bugs me is the blocking of the "fixes" and all other business by the Reps and especially their companion conservative Dems. The healthcare bill is law. Why are these people fighting to preserve things like the the sweetheart deal for Nebraska?
They are also intentionally forcing the cancellation of important meetings on Homeland Security, review of status and funding for Afghanistan Police forces, and even refused to hear from commanders who had flown in from Korea to address the nuclear situation in N. Korea.
Now I can understand the Reps doing this. They live on obstruction and just tell their followers they're fighting "socialized medicine" while hoping by some miracle to hurt the Dems. (silly but it seems to works with their following.) But the Dems they are participating in this are just idiots.
Last Edit: Mar 25, 2010 7:54:35 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Drill Baby Drill - I've had arguments with a few Republicans over why opening new areas to off-shore drilling doesn't make sense under *current* economic conditions. Namely, it is too expensive for oil companies to establish the infrastructure to distribute oil off the east coast.
The price/barrel as it exists now does not permit the construction of deep sea rigs, and the on-shore refineries, holding and pumping stations and pipelines needed to distribute the oil into the U.S. The price of oil would have to at least double for oil companies to give a thought to begin tapping oil reserves off the east coast. What would cause the price of oil to double in the near-term? Iran immediately comes to mind.
But, if oil companies need the price of oil to jump before they begin drilling off the east coast, does this become an enticement to oil companies to instigate a price rise? When President Obama announced the opening of off-shore to drilling while standing in front of a fighter jet I think the message is clear; the U.S. will fight for oil. And, if war causes a rise in the price for oil, we will use the increased profits to fund the search for new oil. I hope the Nobel Peace Prize slips from Obama's oil and blood-soaked hands.
^ I certainly hope you're wrong, and I don't think we're on the verge of war with Iran anytime soon. I think it's more driven by politics: expanding offshore drilling is popular, particularly in tough economic times, even though it has zero chance of affecting oil prices anytime in the next ten years. Also, where you could and couldn't drill for oil previously was arbitrary -- with this.
It's also worth noting that even if we go to war with Iran at any point during the Obama administration, offshore drilling won't increase oil supplies until after Obama leaves office, and even then it will be a rounding error in global reserves. The price won't move much, if at all. So if his plan has anything to do with hedging against an oil price increase, it won't work.
The Obama camp claims it's to win Rep votes for other climate change/environmental bills.
I don't like it. We really need to find a replacement for oil. But, as usual, we'll wait until some scientist says "Holy fuck, we only have a year of oil left on the planet!" Then there'll be a bunch of wars and we still wont have a replacement.
The Obama camp claims it's to win Rep votes for other climate change/environmental bills.
This won't happen. However, it might win the votes of right-leaning voters in elections.
Also, the stimulus last year did a fair amount for alternatives. The auto bailout should advance the move toward hybrid/electric cars, and the tremendous natural gas reserves found in recent years should help to limit our dependence on oil.
I really, really hope this is a bargaining chip to make other alternatives more palatable to the opposition in an overall bill. We all know any new rigs won't be producing until the end of a second Obama term.
On the subject... why not something like what Germany did? About a decade ago, they instituted a massive solar stimulus program and I think it's gone quite well. They ordered banks to guarantee loans to homeowners who wished to install solar panels on their roofs; they also ordered utility companies to purchase excess electricity generated by solar-powered homes. They now have the highest solar use per capita in the world. The program has generated power equivalent to 9-10 operating nuclear plants over the past decade, with a price tag equivalent to opening just two nuclear plants.
Screw drilling... I want to see something like that.
funny how pres obama doesnt question the constitutionality of "making" people buy health insurance when they dont want it, but he will question the constitutionality of arizona's new immigration law
I kind of agree with the idea that making people buy health insurance is bad. Especially when we set no price controls on the insurance companies and have no public option to make them charge competitive rates. But it's the best the wimpy Dems would push for and obstructionist Reps would allow.
I doubt the "unconstitutionality" of it as the Supreme Court has stated many times that ANYTHING affecting the economy is covered under the Interstate Commerce clause. Way too broad and intrusive ruling but it is what it is and healthcare is 1/6 of the GDP.
I stand by my thinking that instead of making people BUY insurance we should have universal coverage provided, or at least tightly regulated, by the government like every other industrialized nation. It's cheaper, fairer, and everyone else likes it (at least better than we seem to like our system.)
Last Edit: Apr 25, 2010 11:53:04 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
plenty of people...plus, the point is that the gov't is making people buy a product, or else be fined.
You mean the same way every state does for auto insurance?
i love when this argument is used. one is not forced to buy auto insurance...only if they want to drive an automobile. there are alternatives to driving; walking, riding a bike, carpooling, public transit, etc. those that don't want to pay for auto insurance could do as everyone's favorite "green" man -al gore- preaches; just don't do as he does (private jets everywhere, more electricity usage in his own home than several households, etc). with the healthcare, there is no alternative...everyone must have it, or be fined.
so i guess no one wants to talk immigration reform. let me say that i would more than likely be for it, except for the fact that dems want amnesty. we already have high unemployment, healthcare is costing a shitload with as many people uninsured, etc. why are they so intent on adding however many illegals to the system that are in this country. is it possible that dems realize that with the healthcare bill passage, many are afraid of losing their positions, and so they are going to need as many votes to keep their seats? i would guess that a high percentage of hispanics/latinos that would become citizens if amnesty is passed would vote democratic. why you may ask. the answer is simple...free everything!!
You mean the same way every state does for auto insurance?
i love when this argument is used. one is not forced to buy auto insurance...only if they want to drive an automobile. there are alternatives to driving; walking, riding a bike, carpooling, public transit, etc. those that don't want to pay for auto insurance could do as everyone's favorite "green" man -al gore- preaches; just don't do as he does (private jets everywhere, more electricity usage in his own home than several households, etc). with the healthcare, there is no alternative...everyone must have it, or be fined.
Sorry your logic does not really hold up here, there are plenty of people who have no option but to drive a car. Making people get health insurance, simply holds everyone accountable for their own health. You know like Romneys Mass. plan, that all the republicans liked 4 years ago. No reason I should have to subsidize YOUR medical bills when you fall off a bike and brake your hip, I pay for my insurance and so should everyone else. If you want to opt out of personal accountability you can pay a fine that subsidizes your own health care. My GF works at Vandy and 90% of the er is usually rednecks, or others without insurance, or with Tenn Care who have minor ailments.
^^^i personally do not buy the logic that some people need to drive. no one is forcing anyone to buy a car, therefore, no one is forced to buy auto insurance. if you want to drive, you pay for insurance...that simple. as stated, walk, carpool, bike, public transit are viable options to get to and from work...look at most of the people in new york. public transit is a wonderful thing. i would like to know of people that have "no" option but to drive.
as for the hospital issue, maybe up north the hospitals are full of rednecks. however, down here in borderland, they are full of illegals...mothers who come here illegally and have their children here. the hospitals down here are full of people that can't even speak the national language. also, if you can't pay a hospital bill up front, it is billed to you, which then affects your credit if you can't pay.
^^^i personally do not buy the logic that some people need to drive. no one is forcing anyone to buy a car, therefore, no one is forced to buy auto insurance. if you want to drive, you pay for insurance...that simple. as stated, walk, carpool, bike, public transit are viable options to get to and from work...look at most of the people in new york. public transit is a wonderful thing. i would like to know of people that have "no" option but to drive.
as for the hospital issue, maybe up north the hospitals are full of rednecks. however, down here in borderland, they are full of illegals...mothers who come here illegally and have their children here. the hospitals down here are full of people that can't even speak the national language. also, if you can't pay a hospital bill up front, it is billed to you, which then affects your credit if you can't pay.
Up north? I live in Nashville dude we have plenty of illegals and plenty of rednecks as well. Considering TX has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country I am sure you have your share of white citizens in there gaming the system as well, whether or not you care to admit it.
looking at a map, nashville is not as far north as i had thought. in either case, you are correct. there are plenty of white citizens who are "gaming the system, as you would put it. however, they are in the minority. just look at this site to see that the numbers of illegals using the hospitals are rising.
anywho, i feel that this is off the topic of what i was originally getting at, which was constitutionality of healthcare bill, and constitutionality of arizona's immigration law.
looking at a map, nashville is not as far north as i had thought. in either case, you are correct. there are plenty of white citizens who are "gaming the system, as you would put it. however, they are in the minority. just look at this site to see that the numbers of illegals using the hospitals are rising.
anywho, i feel that this is off the topic of what i was originally getting at, which was constitutionality of healthcare bill, and constitutionality of arizona's immigration law.
To address your link first, I do not accept data from partisan groups who accept money from the Pioneer Fund a pro Eugenics, borderline neo nazi group. They have no desire in presenting honest information only spinning data to make a partisan point.
As to the constitutionality of the health care mandate. The commerce clause says federal law trumps state law on regulation of commerce, which is all health care is at this point. I personally see it as a right, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. The Supreme Court has upheld this many times including in the regulation of marijuana. This is why the DEA is able to bust medical marijuana growers even if it is legal in the state. Maybe you don't like it, but it is certainly constitutional.
Now the Arizona law really has no precedent, so it's constitutionality has yet to be determined. However I think the fact that these searches and proof requirements may amount to unreasonable search and seizure of American citizens, and that will kill it off pretty quick. I think the term reasonable suspicion is overly vague, and it is only going to take a few screw ups before the whole thing is abandoned. Obviously they mean, people who look like Mexicans and speak predominately spanish, which is going to include more than a few US citizens in any border state, and their constitutional protections are going to outweigh the states right to ask anyone they see for proof of their immigration status. Still I am not on the Supreme Court, and they are the ones who will ultimately decide. I think the whole thing stinks of partisan wedge politics in a election year, but who knows. I really doubt it will be an effective way to deal with the problem regardless.
Think about it man, under this loose of a law a cop could take YOU to jail unless you had a Birth Certificate on you. After all illegals get driver's licenses all the time, and you could be Canadian for all I know.
Last Edit: Apr 25, 2010 18:58:15 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
This court has consistently favored corporate and governmental rights over individual rights, with the rare exception for guns and occasionally religion. This is especially true for Thomas and Scalia and seems to be very true for Roberts also. These "conservatives" have even publicly stated that citizens have "no constitutional right to privacy" unless specifically spelled out by the Constitution. So why would you have this right to be left alone on healthcare.
And precedent says the 10th amendment argument is trumped by the Commerce Clause. There is no way they will reverse this precedent at the expense of their "sponsors." The healthcare law will be upheld as constitutional.
I do not know enough about the details of the AZ law to comment on that.
funny how pres obama doesnt question the constitutionality of "making" people buy health insurance when they dont want it, but he will question the constitutionality of arizona's new immigration law
Funny how President Obama was a professor of constitutional law.
He is right to question the constitutionality of this law. This law deserves it - there are numerous places this law could (and should) be challenged.
Arizona is intervening in federal jurisdiction. Immigration and border policy are the domain of the federal government, not states. Arizona is ordering state law enforcement to carry out a federal responsibility. There's your first constitutional question.
The Interstate Commerce clause applies not just to goods in transit, but also to persons traveling. As such, Congress has authority over those issues as well. There's your second constitutional question.
Then there's issues of racial profiling, which - let's not deny it - is inextricably linked to the enforcement of this law. That possibly triggers a challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. That is (at least) your third constitutional question.
Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already heard many cases regarding "stop and identify" statutes, oftentimes hinging on issues involving the Fourth (unreasonable search & seizure) and Fifth (right against self-incrimination) Amendments. This just might be the next big one of them.
Constitutional issues aside, this law is just awful policy for so many other reasons.
As I mentioned, it's more or less impossible to separate enforcement of this law from racial profiling issues. Unless the law is applied equally, there's going to be an opening for someone to file a lawsuit. Even if the law somehow IS implemented without triggering a lawsuit, it's kind of a waste of time. Undocumented immigrants have an incarceration rate about one-fifth that of the general populace. So... Arizona wants to use more police resources to target a group that is less likely to be criminals? That seems to be an inefficient use of state resources to me.
Speaking of inefficient use of state resources, another fun fact: Arizona will not have the authority to deport anyone arrested under this law - only detain. Those arrested under this law will not be returned to their country of origin, but will instead go to an Arizona state prison. An undocumented migrant worker definitely stimulates the economy more than an undocumented prisoner. The undocumented prisoner is paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would imagine this would have a net negative economic impact.
Under this law, state agencies can be sued for inadequate enforcement of the law. I'm not certain of the specifics for adequate enforcement, but that seems to me like the first step towards an arbitrary quota system. I don't see how that can end well.
If those ways of wasting taxpayer money weren't enough, there are social costs to consider. This law undermines public safety by providing a disincentive for undocumented crime victims to report incidents to police. I would rather see child abuse or rape among the undocumented community reported and dealt with, rather than permitted to occur for fear of triggering this law. I'd like to think that's a level of human decency shared by all political stripes, but this law makes me second-guess that.
This law isn't even good policy aside from the constitutional issues. It just plain stinks, because it's election-year bullshit.
Arizona's current governor is Republican Jan Brewer (who assumed the position when Democrat Janet Napolitano left to become Secretary of Homeland Security) is running for her first actual election to the office - with close competition in a three-way primary. This is definitely a move to score political points.
It's kind of indicative of where that state is going in general. Longtime incumbent Sen. John McCain has been facing a strong challenge from the right. McCain was about +20 in the polls in the beginning of the year; he currently leads by about five points. Listening to him talk lately, it's as if he has no recollection of co-authoring a comprehensive immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy five years ago. These days, he's talking like just this one part of that comprehensive strategy requires acting upon. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just another one of those things Mac has to say to survive a GOP primary, but it's still disheartening to see from him. Not surprised though.
Passing this law might be good campaigning, but it is bad governing. (Like so much of what displeases me about politics in America.) We probably wouldn't be discussing this law if it weren't for desperate politicians succumbing to election-year political pressures. While I agree that something needs to be done to strengthen border/immigration enforcement, this is definitely not the right way to go about it.
I find it fitting to end this rant with a point that, while not entirely related to this law, should help bring things full circle as far as Arizona and Obama are concerned.
I think it is definitely worth noting what the Arizona state legislature has been up to recently. There is a bill currently working through their legislature, requiring presidential candidates to submit documentation proving they meet constitutional eligibility requirements for the office. The Arizona House has already passed it; the bill is awaiting a vote in the Arizona Senate. This seems to be a move by the "birther" movement to question and potentially challenge Obama's legitimacy as president. All we'd need is one Arizona secretary of state to have another Katherine Harris on our hands. To me, it just demonstrates the hold that such political extremism has taken in that state.
I think it is perfectly acceptable that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate, and that the state of Hawaii converted to digital birth records about a decade ago. I think it makes perfect sense. What happens, though, if somehow a challenge were mounted? Would that make any and all Hawaiian birth certificates invalid in Arizona's eyes? Wouldn't that make it illegal to be an American citizen in an American state?
Who's Arizona to dictate national policy to the federal government, anyway? They're trying to upend federalism, which is exactly why this law won't survive the court challenges.
So there's an oil spill off the Gulf Coast. So how's that "drill baby drill" working out for ya? wink
I also find it funny that the party that calls the president a fascist and put little Hitler mustaches on his picture goes out and creates a law that requires people to show their "papers." Oh the irony.
I also find it funny that the party that calls the president a fascist and put little Hitler mustaches on his picture goes out and creates a law that requires people to show their "papers." Oh the irony.
Seth Meyers on Saturday Night Live this past weekend had a great little rant on the topic. Basically saying the same things you just did. It's up on Hulu.com (the second joke....after the "Greece 2" joke) if anyone wants to check it out.
funny how most states require you to have identification on you anywho. so please tell me how much more different is this?
Please let me know which state requires you to carry an id? I am pretty sure the answer is none. That would be unconstitutional, kind of like this law. Sorry I think you have been drinking a little too much kool aid flavored tea recently.
Last Edit: Apr 26, 2010 16:59:53 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
i have been grossly misinformed. one DOES NOT have to carry identification. for spewing out incorrect info i apologize. however, that tea-flavored kool-aid sure tastes good!!!