3 years later and the truth about it comes out. This was easily one of the most important pieces of legislation moving forward and it was rushed through the process. And you seem to forget the vote buying involved using tax payer money.
Yeah. This might’ve been a good teaching moment for the kid. Basing policy on what you learn from a CNN report might be a bit shallow.
It’s as public a document as public can be. Anybody who didn’t know about it has only themselves, and their “news” purveyors perhaps, to blame. There is no secret here.
Since you insist on continuing that falsehood, it’s necessary to continue to remind you that this bill took a year and a half to get through Congress. Legislation was first filed by Harry Truman, and it’s been a topic of national debate since Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign. “Rushed”? :rolleyes:
How does “Fox never told me any of the details and I was too damn lazy to go find out” become “It was rushed” and “The truth was hidden” in your mind? :dubious:
And you do not understand where the money went - to the constituencies of the legislators who, in the normal way legislation is constructed, managed to get it for them. NOT into their bank accounts, as you insinuate.
IOW you have not yet posted a single factual sentence in this thread. Do make a little effort in the future, will you please? :rolleyes:
More of your evasion there. It doesn’t work here, as you know, but shame on you for using it on your own kid. Oh well, if he’s as smart as you say, he can grasp it too.
In case you yourself don’t get it: All that religionists who say what you did do is pick *which *laws they proclaim to be “God’s” (and therefore, conveniently, undebatable) and *which *are merely Man’s. You’re declaring your own personal opinions, however derived at, to be ordained by God - which is a claim you wouldn’t even need to resort to if they held up to any rational scrutiny.
Now, how about finally providing some substance to your “position” that goes a bit deeper than “Suck it Democrats!” ? It’s been requested multiple times, in the faint hope that it even exists. How about pleasantly surprising us? Can you do that?
The evidence that it was rushed is the topic of this thread. There was no due diligence in this legislation. But as is typical when you can’t debate something, you throw FOX into it like the some kind of liberal cow patty. The numbers used to cost out CLASS were bogus from day one and it’s taken 3 years for the President to admit it.
The votes were bought, there is no other way to describe it. It was tax money used to prop up a politician’s base in order to purchase a vote. To say that money went to the constituents is nothing short of saying THEIR vote was purchased as well.
No, the OP is evidence of a lot of things, but not that.
You know better than that, and if not, you have no excuse.
Then where do you you get your talking points from? Not the world of fact, we’ve established that already. So, if it isn’t Fox, what is your excuse?
Already explained. It’s how legislation is created. Another thing you have no excuse for not understanding.
Perhaps Macgiver can offer us an example of legislation he approves wholeheartedly and was accomplished without any of this civic corruption aka “gambling at Ricks Place, shockedshocked”.
It’s like you didn’t even read the thread. White House eliminates insurance program for long-term care
“already explained”. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Tears of laughter on that. Obama had to buy votes for legislation that wasn’t properly vetted and he used taxpayer money to do it. A fool and our tax money are soon parted.
A great many legislators have admitted (even bragged) that they did not do due diligence on this legislation, but it can’t have been because it was too rushed, because it wasn’t. Rather, those legislators’ lack of due diligence is just plain their own fault.
Three pages and not a single “forced down our throats” mention? You guys are slipping.
nm
Can’t really say the passage of the CLASS Act was a waste of time. What else were they going to do with their time? It’s not like they have so much they’re trying to accomplish, but they just can’t find the time to fit it in.
And, how much time did it actually take? We’ve probably put more man hours debating it in this thread then Congress spent on it.
For those looking to educate themselves, a useful and reasonably well-balanced column on the history of CLASS: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-the-class-act-says-about-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQA8cL0rL_blog.html
Takehome paragraph:
+1
PS - Bricker, your son sounds like an awesome kid.
The CBO? What do *they *know? They’re even saying Obama’s jobs bill will create 1.9 million of them. That can’t be right; so we gotta vote against the thing.
:rolleyes:
And perhaps then he can inform us of what would be better legislation to attack the health care problem with than this thing he talkingpointedly calls “Obamacare”. Since, unfortunately, there’s no basis upon which to expect that, I’d be happy to get a responsible response to that from *anybody *in his faction.
That’s not fair. We have to prove the new health care plan is better than their yet to be identified plan. We fall into their trap if we try, because they know by definition anything that you slap Obama’s name on can’t be good.
That’s not accurate. They deferred money in the first 5 years to be used in the next 5 years of the 10 year estimate. It was an accounting trick. This was discussed in the same newspaper in 2009:
"Third, a new gimmick has been designed to pretend that health reform is fully paid for. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions adopted a measure, endorsed by the Obama administration, to have the government provide long-term care insurance in which workers would be automatically enrolled unless they opt out. Premiums would flow into the system beginning in 2011, but benefits would not begin to be paid out until five years later; consequently, over the 10-year budget window through which the Congressional Budget Office assesses legislation, the program would bring in $58 billion, according to CBO estimates. Thankfully, the committee also agreed to an amendment, offered by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), to require that premiums be set at an actuarially sound level – not so low that the program would end up further draining the federal treasury. Still, the money that flows in during the 10-year budget window will flow back out again. These are not “savings” that can be honestly counted on the balance sheet of reform. "
This was referred to by Republicans in theirassessment of it earlier this year.
So the idea that it was an accounting gimmick goes back to 2009.
So, you are saying the government shouldn’t use accounting tricks? Or just Democrats?