Nope, I’ve never heard of Representative Paulsen. He’s not very high ranking, is he?
That’s hardly a policy argument, all it says is what the author(s) claim won’t happen because of the tax.
“These three bad things won’t happen” is not a valid policy. IMO.
He is the second-ranked Minnesota Republican now in Washington, and the point man for the one policy change example you picked. If you don’t know him, you’re not a close Washington-watcher (not a criticism), so you heard it from some pundit who heard it from him or someone affiliated with his effort. It is a small item in a huge bill.
The argument for the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending, and that the industries so taxed will benefit even more from the increased business the ACA drives to them (essentially, we’re creating business for them, so they can help pay for the deal).
The “three bad things” are the arguments against the tax from Paulsen, et al. Do you have some other arguments on this policy point you picked?
Second, out of three. Huzzah!
No one else has heard of this back bencher from MN. And no, I didn’t hear the medical devices tax from any pundit. That’s a b.s. accusation.
I, and millions of others, think that it’s unacceptable.
Where else could you possibly have got it from? You’re obviously not a Roll Call reader. Again, that’s not a criticism–but it does mean that whatever information you have about wonkings of policy had to come through an intermediary.
Yeah, whatever.
You haven’t made the slightest gesture toward any policy argument here yourself; you’ve just baldly asserted that the opposition has none. I point to one, you still have nothing to say about it.
You cited this detail of the law as a significant test of policy-versus-politics. If it is, you seem to be failing–filing yourself on the politics side. You oppose this tax because you heard somebody else say you should, perhaps simply because it is a “tax” within “Obamacare,” and those are trigger words.
No intermediary. As an example, I just finished watching the debates and votes on the Keystone Pipeline amendments, which ended at approximately 12:25 AM. I also watch coverage of the House.
Still never heard of Rep. Paulsen of MN. Big Player, he must be.
You haven’t presented a policy position worth mentioning. (three reasons why something is not that bad doesn’t count). And I’ll thank you to stop misrepresenting my position.
If you’re going to claim you read about it in the text of the ACA, I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit. Otherwise, intermediary.
.
Well, that’s just it, Congress can claim to represent the will of the people, but so with equal legitimacy can the POTUS, that’s our system. A midterm that goes against the POTUS’ party changes none of that.
I believe Peremensoe was asking what your argument is against a certain provision of the ACA. What does Keystone have to do with that?
Peremensoe presented a policy position: ‘The argument for the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending, and that the industries so taxed will benefit even more from the increased business the ACA drives to them (essentially, we’re creating business for them, so they can help pay for the deal).’ It is worth mentioning because you are the one who brought it up as an example.
The difference in my mind is that the President is capable of operating on a data-driven basis, while the right seems to get their ideas from cuckooland.
One issue with the “will of the people” argument is that Obama received more votes in 2012 tham all of the republican congressional candidates combined in 2014 due to voter turn out. Republicans control the congress but it is a stretch to draw any conclusions from that election to what Obama should do.
And why?
I read about it in the text of the ACA.
Is that also bullshit?
“It helps pay for things” is the policy behind nearly every tax. You can’t handwave it away unless you want every federal tax repealed.
If reading about it in a newspaper is using an intermediary, then guilty as charged. But it certainly wasn’t Representative Nobody Has Ever Heard Of from Wisconsin, or wherever, that Mr./Ms. Pere insisted I got it from.
Pere Without using the internet, who is Representative Mike Bost?
Nope. I actually believe that you have read the text of the law.
Vetoing a bill isn’t obstructionism. Voting against a bill isn’t obstructionism, either. Both of those are part of the way our system of government is designed. If you can’t get a majority of legislators in both houses to agree to a bill, or can’t get a President voted in who will sign it, the bill doesn’t become law.
The filibuster as currently used, however, is obstructionism. It’s not about preserving the will of the people; it’s about thwarting it. 40% should not be able to block the will of 60%.
Are you certain of that? I’m not doubting the newspaper part, mind you. But Paulsen spearheaded proposed legislation to kill the medical devices tax, got an awful lot of press about it, and was instrumental in bringing the issue into the public sphere. It would not IMO be out of the question that at least some of the talking points in the article you read came from his office or from his allies.
The President issued more veto threats in the SOTU than any other SOTU since at least WWII.
That was on Tuesday, today is Friday, where are the examples of ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC and the rest calling out President Obama for obstructionism?
Cue the sound of crickets, as expected.
Rhetoric is not obstructionism. When he actually exercises the veto pen, you will have more of a point.
Maybe because it isn’t obstructionism?
Also, you’re equating threats of vetoes with the Republicans’ actually obstructing legislation, to the point of shutting down the government and costing U.S. taxpayers $24 billion? :dubious: