Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

"Whatever will the right wingers WAIL about now?"

What they usually wail about: Teleprompters and solar panels.

And guns taken on purpose by the ATF to Mexico.

I know you all saw the latest this morning.

I plan on wailing about the lack of a true salary cap in Major League Baseball, which renders my Baltimore Orioles non-competitive on an annual basis.

Also on my list of things to wail about is that person who never pulls my numbers during the PowerBall drawings.

They'll revert back to the birth certificate and taxes.

Good one, Frank "Grimey".

The SCOTUS should decide on the constitutionality of the death penalty at the same time.

Somehow, the two seem to be intertwined.

Uh, Richard?

It's important that it be decided quickly so that individuals and businesses can make the necessary plans. With this law 'up in the air', businesses may be reluctant to hire without knowing what their increased costs might be.

I suspect that Obama is hoping for a win next summer to divert attention from his failed economic policies, and will try anything to give him hope.

While I think it's 'overly broad' (where does it end?), the only people that get to decide will be on the Supreme Court, and since Justice Kagan will probably be required to recuse herself because of her involvement in defending the bill in lower courts, it should be interesting. Depending on how Justice Kennedy votes, it could be 5 - 3 to rule against, or possibly a 4 - 4 deadlock.

In any case, it should be interesting.

The grand pubar speaks! The Supreme Court must now follow his edict!

Hyperbole, Richard.

Jody, Iowa

"They'll revert back to the birth certificate and taxes."

Would you believe I saw a big ol' billboard on the south side of Des Moines (classy area, to be sure...) a couple of days ago that said 'where's the REAL birth certificate?"

....And they get mad whey you imply they might be just a little 'screwy'.

The court is likely to hear it just prior to the 2012 elections. There must be confidence in the outcome -- This request is designed to cut the crazies off at the pass. Excellent!

my, my; such wailing about wailing, lol;o)

What about the DOE just approved $1billion in solar energy loan guarantees.

$737,000 to Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

The project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs.

$337 million loan guarantee to Sempra Energy.

The project will result in 300 construction jobs

They have 10 more projects to approve before the deadline Sept 30.

That's something to wail about.

Glad to see the push. Anyone know the timeline involved?

Grimey -- : ) That person ticks off millions!!!

Just a smoke screen. Obama is hoping that the Supreme Court will refer it back to the lower courts

I disagree. Obama is hoping the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional and Obamacare is basically repealed as a result which prevents any GOP candidates from using this as a campaign issue. It is highly unlikely that the economy will reverse course sufficient to make an Obama victory anything but a very tough uphill battle. Obamacare is so unpopular that he doesnt want to defend it. Its actually a very shrewd political move on his part and he cant actually put the campaign burden on the GOP to come up with something better.

Kirk,
Interesting theory... kinda like asking IF it's worth defending. It would be a bummer to stake your reelection on defending it only to have it be unconstitutional. A little deep, but possible.

Personally, I believe we need it decided one way or another. That would either kill it altogether (more certainty) or stop the state game-playing and make us get on with it (also more certainty).

I don't hear anybody suggesting Clarence Thomas recuse himself because of his wife's paid position with a tea party organization that was lobbying against the health care bill. No special interests there, huh?

The sooner this is ruled illegal the better off everyone will be on both sides of the debate. This is an intrusion on individual liberties and cannot stand.

ntvmt -

Why should Thomas recuse himself because of his wife? He does not have a conflict of interest. However, Elena Kagan does have a conflict of interest as she argued the case before lower courts on behalf of Obama. In her situation, it is pretty cut and dry.

Doesn't matter Betty,

Our next President will repeal Obamacare in his, or her, first month of office.

Just as challenges to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act all failed, challenges to health reform are failing as well. ... We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree.".................................I'm confident that two justices will disagree.

Our next President will repeal Obamacare in his, or her, first month of office.

Only if you believe a politician-to-be-named-later. It's a campaign promise. Good luck with that one. The tenth amendment seems a better bet, though it's been on a losing streak lately.

Ha.....you folks are ALL WRONG !!!

The reasons the White House has recommended this thing go straight to the SCOTUS is:

• Mr. Obama's approval rating is in the DIRT.
• Mr. Obama has thrown almost all his base under the bus
• Mr. Obama has failed in his Domestic and International policies.
• The Democratic (Liberal) Party has second thoughts on his chance for re-election.
• The Black Caucus remains upset over Mr. Obama's remarks at THEIR dinner.
• The Latino's are upset because they want AMNESTY NOW.
• The Independents are tired of the dog and pony Circus shows in the Oval office, in the Rose Garden, on T.V. and radio, in the back rooms, and especially in the Democratic controlled Senate.
• SCOTUS votes Mr. Obama's signature legalisation, the Mandated Universal Health Care Reform, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
• Defeat of his "signature" legislation puts a nail in the coffin for Mr. Obama's chances for re-election (this is the reason he wanted to find out BEFORE the next Presidential election).
• Mr. Obama announces HE WILL NOT RUN FOR RE-ELECTION because of this failure and Modern Day Progressive Clinton (more of the same Obama agenda) steps to the plate.
• The Democrats-Liberals are furious with Mr. Obama stepping down.....and the Republicans win the 2012 Presidential election hands down (doesn't matter who runs).

There you have it.

ldo - What type of hallucinogenic drug are you on?

Put Christie in the race. NJ is absolutely the WORST for surcharges and penalties for not having auto insurance. The pressure will be on SCOTUS to declare it IS constitutional because the mandatory auto insurance penalties in many states are the exact same type of fee for non-participation. They find that it is not constitutional for health care insurance then it is not Constitutional for any kind of insurance.

Christie would have no choice as NJ Governor to back Obamacare because his state would have to refund literally millions, if not BILLIONS in fees that were unconstitutional. Should make it interesting.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet...If this law is allowed to stand....It is only the 2700 page Framework for the 10,000 pages of regulations being written now under the direction of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. Donald Berwick, Lover of European Socialist Healthcare,now the Head of Medicare/Medicaid and the evil Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein and their minions of unelected bureaucrats....

The Administrations primary Defence of ObamaCare is:

Remember when we ran around all over the country for a year saying that The Individual Mandate was NOT a tax ???.......Well, we "mis-spoke". It IS a tax and therefore we can tax anyone to do anything we want.

To little to late. Its just like cop assisted suicide, he doesn't want to have to explain to the libbies why he would kill his own healthcare job killing disaster. He wants the SCOTUS to do it for him because he is chicken schit

Obama needs a diversion from all of the attacks on his economic performance next summer, and he's throwing dice in hopes that something just might help him. Unfortunately, it will likely be 'snake-eyes'.

And it should be interesting if the Republican nominee picks Marco Rubio as their VP running mate - There goes much of Obama's Hispanic vote.

There was a good reason that Obama's political adviser Axelrod called Obama's re-election efforts a 'titanic' struggle. The Titanic sank too.

ROY WILSON-336103

I think Marco Rubio is already the VP pick, no matter who wins the Republican Nomination for President.

amused but not distracted

ldo - What type of hallucinogenic drug are you on?

It is called: TRUTH SERUM !!

Kirk has an interesting poind. If it was anyone but the anointed one I would say no way but Obama is one Deviously cleaver slimmy SOB. You may have hit it on the head!

GrammaKnows

Put Christie in the race. NJ is absolutely the WORST for surcharges and penalties for not having auto insurance. The pressure will be on SCOTUS to declare it IS constitutional because the mandatory auto insurance penalties in many states are the exact same type of fee for non-participation. They find that it is not constitutional for health care insurance then it is not Constitutional for any kind of insurance.

GrammaClearlyDoesntKnow...You cannot compare mandated liabity auto insuracne with the indidvidual health insurance mandate. There is a significant difference between the two. First, you do not have to buy the mandated liability auto insurance if you do not have a car. You have a choice. If you want to drive, you have to insure yourself against the damages you may do to anothers property or self. With the individual health insurance mandate, you are required to buy health insurance simply because you are alive and a citizen of this country. In essence, you are being forced to pay a tax, or buy a product, simply because you exist. Even social security and medicare do not require you to participate if you do not earn income and pay into the program. Also, the health insurance madate is forcing you to buy a product, or pay a fine, to insure yourself, not to protect others from damages you may inflict upon them. And I know a lot of people that suppor the law will say it keeps from spreading the cost to insured Americans who need health care, and that's why it protects others. However, you could say the same about any other product or service. When someone steals from a store, the loss is defrayed by increasing the price on the goods or services the business sells. That increases the price for the consumers who must buy that product. By using the argument of saying a person who is uninsured costs the rest of the poplulation money, therefore everyone must buy insurance, that leaves the door open for other similar arguments. Why not say, people steal food to eat. Since that increases the costs to consumers who need to buy food to remain alive, the government mandates that all citizens have to buy their monthly alotment of food from a store and if they do not will have to pay a fine. I know its an exagerated example, but the concept is no differnt.

Remember when Obama droned on and on and on and on and on about how the personal mandate was not a tax and it was a penalty? Now they have to sell it as a tax to have any hope of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of Obamacare. And lib's will look you in the eye and tell you he is a virtuous man.

ido - Truth serum! Washed down with "foxhole slurry"? Yummy! Double the dose and slurry, hopefully you return to reality.

As do I.

Not a chance in the world that they pass on this.

Sign of the times: Hallmark selling unemployment sympathy cards

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/27/hallmark-now-selling-unemployment-sympathy-cards/

At least one business is taking advantage of ObamaNomics.

Hallmark is pretty shrewd. I mean, when jobs are evaporating at the rate fof 700,000 per month, why not......Er.....wait a minute.......

Shoot Drive By, you think Obama could use that as a slogan?

It was bad, now a little less.

Wait, nevermind - that's JAS1's idea "It could have been worse."

Yeah, that's a great campaign slogan all right.

Hallmark will need some storage space Buzz. I hear you have 5 garages. Sweet.

Hallmark has their 2012 edition of a card just for Barry. It's says "See'ya!"

spanky

That applause isn't loud enough. you know, like you'll usually be screaming on top of your lungs when bitching about tax codes and volt cars, more tax cuts welfare for me the glutton, mr job creator.

Sign of the times: Hallmark selling unemployment sympathy cards

This thread is about HCR & SCOTUS and yet Smiffy here mocking people who are unemployed...

How's that picking on the handicapped coming along honey?

Somebody who gripes about Joe Walsh every day probably shouldn't be throwing stones about going off-topic.

Feisty I know you don't like the man, but surely you enjoyed "Hotel California"

It's a classic.

Hallmark has their 2012 edition of a card just for Barry. It's says "See'ya!"

Hallmark made sure to not put any n's in the message. Barack likes it that way.

Uh, Pen that's "Ser Job Creator."

Hey man, can't a guy give his president an atta boy without getting criticized from you?

Pen - are you a welfare glutton? Man, I hope not.

Feisty I know you don't like the man, but surely you enjoyed "Hotel California"

Yeah I enjoyed it, but, my all time favorite Eagle's song is; 'Life In the Fast Lane' ;o)

Nothing could get that up to fast.......more like life in the butter drenched popcorn lane. I could get good at this. All this pent up energy needs to be dispersed. Anyways I have a blind son and a 95% handicapped wife (number 4 for your notes queenie) Who I pay for 100% through my insurance policy and supplemental policies. The good thing about handicapped people is they have good senses of humor, my son has a barrel of driving jokes in his act. So JAS go ahead the handicapped people can handle it.

JoAnnaSmith1

"Hallmark will need some storage space Buzz. I hear you have 5 garages. Sweet."

But- one's taken by a Volt, and one by a Prius. No plans for a Fisker, though.

"Hallmark made sure to not put any n's in the message. Barack likes it that way."

Yer all class, doorknob.

"...the sooner the better."

Then again, 'the better the sooner' might be more appropriate.

Feisty: "This thread is about HCR & SCOTUS and yet Smiffy here mocking people who are unemployed...How's that picking on the handicapped coming along honey?"

Hey Feisty, I AM NOT SURPRISED BUT I believe you missed the point on purpose. The point is, Obama is the one who neglects the unemployed ( havent you heard Maxine Waters griping?) . Obama has concentrated on all his other plans, i.e. Healthcare, sloar energy schemes ( by the way, Nancy Pelosi's bro-in-law is invested in the biggest solar co. with the largest amt. of "stimulus" due to arrive in their dirty little hands.) and fighting to keep our borders OPEN to illegals who drain the system so they can vote DEMOCRAT.

Now the Robert's Court will say "no, we won't hear it

So what would happen then Amy?

HAHA.

I dunno...then the Southern states tie it up in the courts, while the Northern states progress with getting people insured, same as usual?

Oh now just stop that JAS1 - totally not fair to our girl Amy.

Amy, honey, not everything is done to mess with Obama. The court will absolutely take this case. I can think of few that are as important to this country as this issue, that can only be decided by this Court.

This is the correct way to go. The congress passed a law, conflicting opinions have been issued, so the Supreme Court needs to make the call.

My prediction remains that the mandate is against the law and the entire law will be stricken. Just basic contract interpretion.

As I recall, AnnaMolley, who knows a lot more about COnstitutional Law than I, agrees.

But we shall see, and hopefully fairly soon.

Actually, it's been said that having the Supreme Court hearing coincide with the campaign might hurt the President, since repealing HCR is the Tea Party's favorite rallying cry. I thought perhaps the Obama administration was using reverse psychology to get the Supreme Court to not take it up during the campaign. Since Clarence Thomas is knee deep in Tea Party politics, and Alito, Scalia and even Roberts have signalled their party allegience, I would assume they would like to hurt Obama's campaign.

Just me, thinking outside the box.

Keep that up.

I think it's more a case of it being Obama's signature achievement, and him realizing he is not going to be around after 2012 to defend it.

You don't think President Perry/Romney is going to have the DOJ defend it, do you.

Think DOMA. Holder took a pass, just like Brown has taken a pass defending prop 8 out here.

This is about Obama protecting his legacy, it's his end game.

This is about Obama protecting his legacy, it's his end game.

Obama's legacy will be he got Osama. That's it. Well, that, and Lilly Ledbetter.

It will make for succinct Wiki entry.

The failure leg of the entry will take up a couple of gigabytes.

Who knows, Amy, you might be right. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't want anything to do with it for their own survival as justices. Think about it, Thomas needs to recuse himself; Alito should as well; several of them attend the Koch Brothers secret meetings, Citizens United.

Hey, that Lilly Ledbetter legislation is big news. Before it was passed, in January/2009, womens pay was 77% of mens. Now, womens pay is 77% of mens.

Thank you President Obama.

Source: http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html

I know, I know. Again with the "results" thing.

Jody -

Just because Thomas' wife is involved with the TEA party does not mean that he has a 'conflict of interest' - whether you would like this to be so or not. The association is his wife's, not his. Besides, as the TEA party did not have anything to do with the writing of or passage of Obamacare, there would still not be a conflict of interest.

Elena Kagan, however, either helped to actually write the legislation or argued for it on Obama's behalf before she became a Supreme Court Justice. This is, by definition, a classic example of a 'conflict of interest'.

If you are so 'concerned' about the court being unbiased, why aren't you worried about her very clear ethical conflict?

Or are you just unhappy because the court will not be as liberal as you would like?

By the way, I'd worry about the liberal justices as well considering that he 'chastised' the Supreme Court in front of the entire country last year just because he did not agree with their decision.

Yea ask Mr Carville about that one. Its a good thing there are women who WONT hold out sex because you dont agree with them. My wife tells me" why would I punish myself because your an @!$%#"

Tammy,

You're kidding yourself if you don't see Ginni Thomas' job as a lobbyist and founder of Liberty Central as a conflict of interest for her husband Justice Thomas. Do you honestly believe he can't be bought by going through her?

The ACA is not Obama's 'end game'.

Doing the 'right thing' is.

The legacy comes with the territory.

So then......lets make all judges eunuchs. Im willing to believe he is at a level that can say no to his wife on these issues. Sorry your not!

Do a little research on Justice Ginsberg's late husband, then get back to me on spousal involvement=conflict of interest.

This was a calculated gamble- Obama wants this over and done with before 2012. He hopes people will forget about it.

By the way, the 11th Circuit found the mandate unConstitutional. Should the SCOTUS not take the case, their ruling controls.

Bye bye, mandate. Thus, bye, bye, HCR. It dies under its own weight.

No, that is wrong about the 11th circuit aberration controlling. That would be frightening power, for every bizarre case that went against all the others to be the one followed. It's upheld by every single court except one, so that is the law of the land? Um...no.

It only takes 4 justices to hear the case, so I'm sure it will be heard. I assume Thomas will correctly recuse himself AFTER he votes to grant cert.

Sucks short term, WCA, but long term it helps to kill "green" energy.

Obama is doing his best to kill off all the unicorns and fairies. Well, him and his buddy Van Jones.

That guy is a real hoot.

My bad, it was just a BILLION.

Hard to keep track these days.

A billion here, a trillion there...pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

el have a constitutional right to gripe as much and as long as I want.

But I don't get your comment - we already pay for ER care - illegals, poor, and others.

It's called EMTALA. Emergency Medical. blah, blah. blah act. Hospitals have to proved treatment and can't dump patients. Plus a lot of other super neat stuff that wrecks cost containment.

Spanky- Ignoring author

"el have a constitutional right to gripe as much and as long as I want."

Yes, you do. It's the ENJOYMENT you seem to get from it that we find disturbing......

I'll still gripe, I'll just pivot to complaining about Illegals getting health care on my dime.

For the Record, when a Republican becomes President and doesn't do anything about it, I will still gripe.

As Spanky said, It is my right, and as DBO said, I do so enjoy it.

I answered the author Drive By. But I foster no illusion that EMTALA will be going anywhere.

So how much to rent out some of the space in that palatial garage you got?

I have a 4 car garage at my home in Port Richie Florida. As long as you dont touch my gun safes, Ive got space. Right next to my Osama Bin Laden military grade targets.

You don't pay under EMTALA. Even when hospitals are forced to treat people without insurance because they are too unstable to dump, they still have to pay the hospital out of pocket.

Leona, that's ridiculous. A lot of major legislation that's ever been passed has not been with resounding bi-partisan support, in fact, often almost no support from the opposition.

The Republicans were NOT LOCKED OUT.., In fact many of the ideas were taken from them..but their fundamental goal was not to pass something to better the plight of Americans but to spread hate and fear and block everything and then blame it on Obama and the democrats..get your ignorant head out of your butt, Leona!

C-1664563, Read up......"The president accused Republicans of frequently mischaracterizing his policy proposals, particularly in the health care debate.

Republicans, in turn, complained the White House and congressional Democrats had ignored their ideas, locked them out of the policy-making process and unfairly labeled them as obstructionists.

"Both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill," Obama said, adding that Democrats and Republicans need to be careful in choosing their rhetoric."

hey C-1664563, sorry BUT you need to "get your ignorant head out of your butt".....

The American people (over 60%) did NOT want it !!!!!!!

By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage

www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx

Leona,

Nice fantasy; here are the facts. The Senate committee that drafted the law had the same number of Democrats and Republicans. This was an attempt to make it bipartisan, since the Democrats had a clear majority and could have staffed accordingly. Many of the provisions in the bill were proposed by Republicans, who then voted against their own amendments. Senator Grassley, for example, first proposed the mandate. When the Democrats agreed to it, he decided it was unconstitutional. Before the final vote, the President held a live televised meeting in the White House with most of the GOP legislators, and asked them for suggestions. The only one he got was scrap the whole thing and start over. By the way, he didn't use a teleprompter and still made them look like first graders in a graduate college course. They'll never agree to meet with him again like that. Of course, they depend on the faithful who swallow everything they say without checking it out. So far, they're proving to read their audience perfectly.

How about something a little more recent, hmmm?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

People want it repealed. In fact, after insurance costs went up 9%, just this year, even MORE people will want it repealed.

And, when people find out what it costa them- and, by that I mean, not just monetary, but convenience, ,mandated coverage, all of which is going to lead to employer provided coverage being the exception, rather than the rule- only Obama and Pelosi will be left not wanting it repealed.

Yep, I thi k it will even include you.

People want it repealed. In fact, after insurance costs went up 9%, just this year, even MORE people will want it repealed.

Yeah, no, because your premiums weren't being raised before HCR was passed...or did you just not notice?

Oddly enough, Noid, mine did not go up that much. See, 9% was the average increase.

There were lots of people in states who had insurance far cheaper than mine. All of a sudden, they were told their insurance was not good enough. Nope. Did not meet the standards.

So, now they have higher insurance premiums. They've got coverages they never had before- single guys are now carrying maternity coverages. Couples in their fifties are carrying well baby care coverages. Fine by me- I've had to carry them for years.

Obama took all the worst things about health care insurance- and spread them across the board. Oh, with an added fillip-

Since companies are eating most of these costs, they are not hiring. And, as soon as they are able, the majority of companies are planning to dump their employer insurance coverage, pay the $3500 per employee fine, and kick all those people into the government pool!

Great! Right?

So much for if you like your insurance, you can keep it.

no jo, i went to your "recent poll", it was the manhattan institute rassmusin poll. are you freakin kidding me? why didn't you just cut and paste from the heritage foundation like mark did above? if i wanted rightwing propaganda, i'd be over at faux. why don't you go to the pbs news hour, for some unbiased reporting, they just did an investagation on the increase on the rising costs of health ins. last night. i watched it. and the increase was not because of hcr. costs have been riseing at these rates for a decade.

Leona: Stop spreading lies. Try an original concept like thinking for yourself and not relying on fake news or loudmouth limpballs for information. The only people who "shut the repugs out" were themselves.

hEY CAL USA & Chris Gilliard, Who's in fantasy land here ?? Look in the mirror. Plain and simple, Obamacare is the biggest power grab by GOVERNMENT IN DECADES and we have NO MONEY. So, heck , we'll borrow trillions from the Chinese to fund this. This tax burden will fall on my kids and grandkids ( maybe even yours too , in case they ever work?!) I guess that doesn't phase you because your always drunk on the kool aid. What will you tell the kids that have to pay for this?

The healthcare bill is not what the democrats wanted. They wanted a public option to compete with the insurance companies. Like the republicans say: competition in a free market would weed out the bad. However when democrats talked about a public option to compete with the insurance companies the republicans balked calling it not fair to big business. This bill was bastardized by the republicans-which the dems allowed in the spirit of bipartisanship. Hell the dems started from the middle rather than the far left in an effort for the bill to be bipartisan. If you compare this bill to what the republicans put out in the 90's against Clinton you would find it amazingly similar. And a lot of the republicans that wrote that plan in the 90's are still in Congress and are now voting against their own ideas.

It's a step toward a public option. In the 90's people didn't support the idea of HCR at all but this time they did. Too often, Congress is way behind the public's thinking. It might not happen next year or in 5 years but eventually state by state, we will see single-payer. Vermont already passed it.

Very true but remember..Its also a contradiction of Christian principles to start wars for unjust reasons, spread hate and lies about your enemies, and neglect the poor.. but that doesnt stop the righties from doing all these things while claiming they are doing gods will...

Ah, you can join me in the 'nationalize healthcare' bit.

I'm one of the few around here who keep harping on that. we have a proven infrastructure (tricare) that already works for 10 million americans, we'd just need to expand it. even expanding it by a factor of 100 (so it could handle 1 BILLION! people)...

would cost us less money that medicare + medicaid does today.

Some huge projects, i truly do think the government should take on(military, healthcare and taxation to pay for it!). just not all the smaller ones that they seem intent on pursuing. pfft.

Dep. of Education was the worst mistake carter ever made.

And if they do rule in his favor you will claim they were all coerced into it, right?

Since when did laws stop Obama from doing what he wanted?

3rd party give me one instance in which Obama has done something that the courts said was illegal? You cant but that doesnt stop you from spreading your lies..

FAST AND FURIOUS, SOLYNDRA, HEALTH CARE BILL, insider trading with george soros in south america, hmmmm let me think what else

C-1664563

3rd party give me one instance in which Obama has done something that the courts said was illegal? You cant but that doesnt stop you from spreading your lies..

CNS News Reports : "Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) thanked President Obama for circumventing the Legislative branch when it comes to immigration law. Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code makes it a federal crime to be in the United States illegally. Nevertheless, the Obama administration in August directed federal immigration officials to use "prosecutorial discretion" in deciding which illegal aliens to detain and deport."

President Obama appointed Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren to be the head
of the brand new U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was
created by the new Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill that became law in July
of 2010. The new law is called the "Wall Street Reform & Consumer
Protection Act." Despite the U.S. Constitution and the express language in the law, President
Obama appointed Warren to be the director of the CFPB without the consent of the
U.S. Senate or even a hearing on whether she should hold the job. Why do few
people care when the President violates federal law? What will happen to our
country if our leaders do not respect and follow the rule of law?

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/09/obama-ignores-federal-law/

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states. Instead of allowing the judicial branch to decide whether a certain group met the 14th Amendment scrutiny he has decided all by his lonesome that sexual orientation should be included. This was a statute that was voted in by a 85-14 majority in the Senate and a 342-67 majority in the House.

law that was passed in 2003 called the Medicare Reform Act. It contains a
provision that if Medicare's trustees forecast that general revenues will be
required for 45% or more of the program's payouts within a 7-year period, then
the president must propose legislation
to correct the problem within 15 days of his next budget submission.

Congress is then required to give this proposal expedited consideration.
This year's annual report of the Medicare Trustees says, "the threshold was in
fact breached" during the last fiscal year and "a Presidential proposal is
required by law in response." President Obama simply ignored the law

Former Constitutional Law Professor, President Barack Obama Ignores Constitution and His Own Advice, Begins War With Libya

The Obama Administration has been
held in contempt by a New Orleans judge, for extending its offshore drilling
moratorium in defiance of a court order. The Administration has also declared
its intention to continue implementing Obamacare, in defiance of a federal court
judgment that the inseparable "individual mandate" is unconstitutional.

Obama hasn't been able to reach an agreement in Congress on how to amend the elementary- and secondary-education act that carries the No Child Left Behind provisions, so the changes will come by way of state waivers.But some members of Congress are already reacting negatively to Obama's move to make the changes with his executive power rather than through legislation. Some believe that the president and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are assuming too much power.

in March 2009 Mr. Obama confirmed this interpretation with an executive order overturning restrictions on federally-funded ESCR put in place by former-President Bush. But not everyone agrees with the President's vision of science's "rightful place," particularly when his pursuit of this vision involves undermining the rule of law and disregarding the sanctity of human life. Not surprisingly, therefore, the President's executive order was challenged in court, and this week, opponents of ESCR have a reason to celebrate. On August 23, 2010, federal Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary injunction against the President's order after concluding that it violates the plain language of the current federal law banning taxpayer funding of the destruction of human embryos for research purposes.

I can keep going C-1664563

russ, you forgot about the famous Rezko who Obama bought his house from......."Antoin "Tony" Rezko (born July 1955) is a Assyrian (Syriac)-American businessman, political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real estate developer in Chicago, Illinois, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008. Rezko has been involved in fundraising for local Illinois Democratic and Republican politicians since the 1980s."

Hmmmmm........wonder why Obama hangs with so many criminals? Is it that Chicago thing? Or is it just plain old Democrat politics? I'll ask Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters this question. They are the experts on fraud. haha

third party advocate, come on, your cutting and pasteing from the christian conservitive commentary network. are you freakin serious? Its a commentary from christian conservitives and you want the people on newsvine, to take it as fact? sorry, i read peoples comments, and if they have a source to back them up i'll check it out. i can usually tell if its a biased site within a few minutes, and i'm outta there,. left or right. too much propaganda out there.

What an uneducated hateful person you are! Russ did you ever go to school ? Or do you just listen to drug addicts like Rush or paranoids like Glenn? You dont even know the meaning of the word communist..

how is that uneducated and hateful? He did bypass all due process and passed this bill with harry and nancy. just like all the regulations hes destroying this country with. his partisan sarcasm every time he speaks warrants back the same. He is a jerk, ANYONE that follows his policies are uneducated. you are in fear when the gop takes over senate and white house they will effectively prove FDR was an incompetent bafoon that allowed our economy to wallow, JUST LIKE NOW! oH YEAH, ADRRESSING the black caucus he said he would gladly go around congress and the house to get what he wanted. Fact. Communist. His dad was a comm, his mom, his friends, just because you CHOOSE to be dumb, dont blame ME

let the gop undo and fix the damage

Oh, like you did with Clinton? You went so far away from HIS economic policies (remember when we HAD a balanced budget & surplus?) that we have the debacle we are now in. Still, you people bitch, bitch bitch...

Undo and fix??? Again???

I don't think so!!!!

get out of the way back machine will ya?! What does 11 years ago have to do with now? OMG! wahhh, bushes fault, wahhhh, reagan, wahhhhh tea party, wahhhhh republicans. Look at your foolish leader. Get a grip on reality and get in present time.

The last 11 years has a hell of a lot to do with now------if you can't see that, then get your eyes and ears checked!!

I know you are but what am i? Thats what it feels like talking to a lib. OMG Debt man walkin! Bye bye Baracalypse!

Heaveto: "The last 11 years has a hell of a lot to do with now..."

Don't you get it?! All that looking back in time (Bushs' fault") has NO bearing on what Obama should be doing right NOW. In the past 3 years Obama added $4 trillion to the debt all by himself! Obama was elected to FIX the problems. He wasn't elected to be a crybaby and BLAME BLAME BLAME. If he cant fix the problems, he needs to REMOVE HIMSELF.

c'mon russel...just admit it...you don't like black people. It's ok, you can tell me...I won't tell anyone.

Actually Mickey,NY We sick and tired of Stupid Crackers who have given away Billions of Our hard earned money like it he was a Welfare jackpot lottery winner.

We sick and tired of Stupid Crackers who have given away Billions of Our hard earned money

But that is EXACTLY what Republicans do... W took the balanced budget, gave away trillions to his wealthy friends & supporters, and drove this nation to economic ruin;

Now you say Obama is giving away billions. Difference is, Obama is giving more to the needy and deserving instead of the wealthy like Republicans do.

Go ahead and choose... I'll pick Obama over W every time, and so will most voters come 11/12.

p.s. russ:

I guess you are going to try to sell us the line that things will be different if we just give you another chance. NO THANKS!!

OMG; no matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the past, YOU REPUBLICANS OWN IT and we voters KNOW it!

But keep spinning and spouting your history re-writes if it entertains you - just don't anticipate that we will accept it just because you say it over and over and over and over and over and over....

Right wingers have no solution for anything ..they just wrap themselves in the flag and sing God Bless America as they spread lies and hate..they have done exactly nothing in all the years they have existed fighting everything from child labor to social security and environmental protection, civil rights and auto safety...they have exactly Zero to point at as accomplishments for the middle classes

Why should we even listen to them?

I see C-1664 is using a bit of a false premise here.

What he doesn't admit is that in regards to the health care cost issue there were several attempts by the "right-wing" to bring up alternate solutions. Some were known to be political non-starters and were never pursued even when many economists said that htey had a far better chance of success than anything being actively pursued. Others were ignored by the media and Democrats because they did not play to their prejudices.

On this argument at this point I'm rather agnostic. I really don't think the survival of Obamacare next year with the Supreme Court is going to matter. The US has a spending problem. There are those who claim that we should raise taxes to fix the problem, but you could take, not tax, but take away completely the entire fortunes of the richest 100 people in the nation and it wouldn't feed the Federal Government for 6 months. The government has no way to raise revenue enough to keep up with the costs of ObamaCare, or any "public option" health care plan. And covering ones ears and shouting out that information doesn't change the fact that the US government must either cut spending considerably, or fail within a generation.

From what we've seen happening in Europe where those that feed at the tit of government riot. The ending here is unlikely to be pretty.

You dont, sit home and turn out the lights.

Richard,

And the care will probably be worse than the horror stories we hear about the UK where people can end up waiting 6 months or more for what in the US are routine medical procedures.

Or they could end up like the actress (Miranda Richardson I believe) who after crashing while skiing in Canada was taken to a hospital that didn't have a CAT Scan machine and did not receive critical treatment for her head injury until it was too late. Any US hospital would have rushed her to the CAT Scan machine automatically, but US hospitals can afford them. Canada doesn't purchase that kind of equipment because it adds to health care costs.

Please explain...since there was no public option how can someone be "on Obamacare"?

The fact is there is a crisis in this country regarding affordable health care..and for better or worse Obama tried to do something about that..while all the righties did was sit on their fat butts and bitch and complain and make false charges..

The health care bill on Jan 20,2012 will be deposited in the garbage where it belongs. Bye bye lib. Im laughing at you.

OK

Steven B

"The sooner the USSC strikes down Obamacare, the better for the entire nation."

The sooner the USSC upholds Obamacare, the better for the entire nation.

My, but that one was easy.

Obama in 2012...if only because there's not a TeaPartier in sight that can beat him. Hurummph!

Um C-1664563

I would like specific examples of the "crisis" in our healthcare prior to the new Healthcare law. I don't want to hear about isolated incidences as exceptions do not prove the rule. I would like the see the true "CRISIS" that caused our entire healthcare plan in the United States to be turned on its ear.

Keep in mind that there were only 8 million "truly" uninsured Americans at the time this legislation was railroaded through congress.

So lets see the Crisis that required this drastic emergency of revamping the entire healthcare law of the U.S.

It's really pretty simple. Start with the fact that over 40M people have no insurance, but still get medical care. The cost is then passed on to taxpayers and/or the insured in the form of higher premiums, co-payments, etc. Add to that the fact that insurance companies are making record profits by driving up premiums at a rate that exceeds inflation and by denying coverage whenever they can get away with it. Add the fact that health care costs are higher per capita in the US than in any other industrialized country, but we don't get the best results. Just to finish it off, let's remember that health care costs are increasing faster than inflation and are expected (unless checked) to become 25% of GDP in few years. Now you see why we have a crisis, don't you? You see, it's not that hard...

And the solution is to hand over control to the government who has mismanaged medicare, medicade, social security, fannie mae and freddie mac?

Out of the 40 million without health insurance 32 million CHOSE to be without health insurance and pay for their medical care out of pocket and are not a drain on the system. 8 million is the real number. The current healthcare bill will force the premiums to rise even higher, hence the arguement that there is no "crisis" except the manufactured one.

Is the best solution to really hand over control to the people who manage money worse than anyone? Do you TRULY believe we arent going be arguing about cutting the funding for the healthcare bill in the future because it is too expensive and rampant with fraud?

Seems to me that Tort reform and better management would be better solutions to bring down costs than "healthcare mandated for all" Have you been reading the papers? reading online? This will be a disaster in the coming years.

I am all for fixing a broken system.. but when the pipe is broken in the kitchen... do you really go out and buy a new house?

You see, it's not that hard... to see the REAL problem and solution

CAL, please do tell us the difference between the "taxpayers" being on the hook for the "uninsured" or the "taxpayers" being on the hook for the new enrollees in "medicaid"? No matter how you slice that pie the "taxpayers" are on the hook. Oh and just for grins and giggles, please explain how ObamaCare is going to halt health care costs from reaching "25%" of our GDP? Oops, one more question... How is Obama going to make cuts and reform medicaid while adding millions of new participants?

You should try looking in the mirror. Your manufactured data does not come even close to those published by reputable organizations, like the Kaiser Institute. Your statment that the Federal Government has mismanaged Medicare and Social Security is standard right wing propaganda. The reality is that 97% of what Medicare spends goes to health care providers. In the case of the Health Insurance industry, the number is closer to 66%. The rest goes to executive compensation, stockholder dividends and to fund their death panels; the ones that deny coverage whenever possible. So the question is, who adds more to the cost of health care and contributes less to the actual delivery of services, the governement or the insurance companies?

So your arguement is that a private company should not pay its employees or pay dividends?

I will ignore your "death panel" remark since there will be one of those in the Obamacare plan anyway.

To say that it is right wing propaganda that the federal government has mismanaged medicare and social security is pretty funny. Did Obama become right wing sometime recently? How about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? did they join the Tea Party when I wasnt looking? No Democrat has ever said those programs need fixing?

It is grossly unfair to say I manufactured data when I took the time to research the information back when the whole healthcare debate was raging. Several independent sites came up with the same rough number. 8 Million. So you can chose to simply disagree with me. Doesnt make the number false.

I am really wondering what your angle 'really' is. Is Capitalism bad? The same money that pays the CEO pays the employee. Compensation is based upon worth to the company. Have you just been told to hate CEOs? I am asking, not accusing. What is the real problem you have with Capitalism?

So do you want to destroy an entire segment of our economy to hand over all healthcare to the Federal Government? Have Republicans and Democrats fighting over it every year along with everything else they fight over?

I have used my healthcare many times in my life and have never been denied a claim. I am sure there are parts that need fixing but I still dont see the need for the Federal Government to take it over.

You may continue trying to belittle me and throw out cute statements like manufactured data and "look in the mirror" but it will not change the truth and will not stop the debate that needs to take place. Perhaps you might want to do more research and you will also discover we went way to far to fix the healthcare issues in our country. I know you will.

Peoples healthcare should not be for profit PERIOD!!!! When an insurance company is for profit their only concern is the bottom line. Medical decisions should not be made based on if it will hurt their profits but be made by doctors on what is best for the patient.

The right speaks as if healthcare costs have only become a problem since Obama has been in office. This has been a problem for decades. Clinton tried to address the issue but was unsuccessful. Now Obama takes what the republicans put out against Clinton and somehow the republicans are against that too. Some of the republicans that are against this law are the same ones that were in Congress back then. These were their ideas - talk about flip flopping.

Some people feel that we went too far 2700 pages blah blah blah. Maybe you are right. It needed to be one page that said Medicare for all. Instead of all of us paying premiums to insurance companies we would pay into medicare where 97% of that money would go to actual healthcare services as opposed to going into CEO pockets and investor dividends.

A lot of people are screaming torte reform but ifyou look at the states that have enacted some sort of torte reform insurance premiums have not gone down. I don't think it is fair to put limits on awards. Each case should be looked at individually on its own merits. Unfortunatly, the people that make up juries are so fed up with big med, big business, pretty much big everything that they sometimes award amounts that are too large for the claim which hurts legitimate claims.

and yet liberals are so sweet and nice and never say anything hateful. Only the republicans are bad. Hmmmm

We in big trouble if all you care about is how someone looks. Go play with your friends.

He doesnt care cause he knows its going in the trash bin after the next election, JUST LIKE HIM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Are you serious?

Obamacare is never going to the trash bin. Even if a Republican became president the right would never have enough votes to repeal the bill.

Ever.

I suppose I should add a few HAHAHAHA'S.

Obamacare is never going to the trash bin. Even if a Republican became president the right would never have enough votes to repeal the bill.

Sure they can get the voted just like Harry Reid did and use a simple majority instead of 60 votes.

Yes they also dont have to read it to dispose of it.

[He doesnt care cause he knows its going in the trash bin after the next election, JUST LIKE HIM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA]

Don't mind russel...he's only five but he wears big boy diapers.

Anyone who thinks that the process for repealing existing legislation is the same as passing new legislation has no idea how the process in congress works. None, whatsoever.

Wish all you want Republican/TeaPartiers, it ain't gonna happen.

Obamacare is here to say, it may change and get fine tuned, etc. but it's here to stay.

Wow.

Folks really don't know how congress works, do they? Obamacare is here to stay.

Wow.

All wet Backs must leave America Too!, That will also come after the 2012 Elections!...

Um Buck Garcia?

Did you really just accuse everyone of not understanding how Congress works? You do realize their was a Healthcare Law in place BEFORE the current law right? That means that the old law got replaced with a new law hence the new law can be replaced with an even newer law.

Never say Never

:)

Good point, except for the fact that I was responding to the word "repeal." That's different from replaced.

And I didn't accuse "everyone" of being ignorant of the ways of congress. Just the special few.

But I do agree with you, "Never say Never."

Thanks.

forrestoak

Sadly, I have to agree with Buck. The nature of government will keep this terrible idea around regardless of how beneficial it is.

Forrestoak, we agree on something! How about that?

You must be tired!.. Smoke another One and go lay Down in the Basment on your Parents Couch!...

Pretty concise description CJ.

Reading BC's "%$#))*(*)" reminds me how much nicer this country was before the internet - when ignorant racists had no anonymous voice. We knew they existed...but it was just so much easier to ignore them.

But CJ - karma's a beautiful thing isn't it?

Kids should not be allowed on here!.. When you children can NOT make a real Argument about something it's off to name calling!... Go lay down with the rest of the Dogs you all got the Flea's FROM!..

When you children can NOT make a real Argument about something it's off to name calling!

...says the person who calls him "Obammy" and "blood sucker" and used the term "wetbacks".

Brutus is an honorable man.

But isn't it so refreshing to see liberals scream "racist" on every page of every discussion?

Your arguements fall on deaf ears because we have all heard the race baiting for years and guess what? we are now tone deaf to it. Liberals do not use concise arguements. Im sorry, but it's true. They use hate, division, name calling, race baiting and wailing to make their point.

I am a Republican. I am not a tea party member, I am not a racist. I am pro gay marriage, I am Pro choice, I am anti "Obamacare" because it went way too far and should have been a targeted measure to fix the imperfections in our system instead of the overhaul which will cost ALL of us more money. I am anti "BIG GREEN" which is just as bad as "BIG OIL" Those who scream bloody murder about subsidies and tax breaks for Oil companies say NOTHING about subsidies and massive waste on "big Green" (Read: hypocritical)

If you want to have an informed debate I am more than happy to discuss point for point with anyone. Math doesnt lie folks.

As for Obama : He is partisan at every turn. He cares nothing for the middle class no matter what he says because his economic polices have decimated the middle class for over two years now. he calls republicans "enemies" and thats just an embarrasment. If you want to send out pundits to bash the other side, who cares... it has been happening for years. When you are in the Top Office it is time for you to be the Leader... not the Cheerleader for only one side.

Obama could have made the case that although rich people pay a ton into the system we need MORE of their help... instead we get "fair share"? fair share implies that everyone should participate (47% that don't pay in as an example)

I know I lost a few of you along the way but, in reality, democrats and republicans are not that far away from one another. With the current administration you would think we are on different planets and must destroy the other to achieve tranquility.

Get over yourselves and start having healthy dialogue instead of childish bickering

Da Noid you realize your two peas of a different pod.....or brothers from another mother.

Watchin - so you are in favor of making the 47% of the country that makes less than poverty level to pay more in taxes. Since they have minimal earnings (this is why they don't pay income tax), should they be locked up? Do we go back to the British 'debtor prison' concept?

And lets do a quick comparison of total taxes paid... The middle class pays 7% sales tax on their entire take home, 7.65% to Social Security, 1.9% to Medicare, 20% to FICA, and 5% to state income tax (41% total tax paid). The ultra rich pay 18% FICA, 7% sales tax on about 10% of their total earnings, 0% social Security, 0% Medicare, and about 5% state income tax -- total of 24% total.

So who is really getting the shaft here? It is not the rich. Time for the rich to pay their fair share.

interested observer -

I address many of your points on page nine I believe (correction: I addressed this point in a separate discussion). That being said, you miss quite a bit when it comes to the "ultra-rich" and their payout to taxes. Add in the 15% capital gains tax and also look at the dollars. In pure Money the rich pay out on average 95% more physical dollars in taxes.

I do not advocate a one percentage for all. However, if we were to truly have a discussion about "fair share" then it should be 9% (or whatever number you want to stick in there) for every man woman and child. That would be a "fair share"

Again on the rich : They pay far more into the system in both dollars and percentage than is discussed. When you take the "whole" rather than parts of the tax system you will discover that their percentage is either on par or more than the average citizen without a doubt. And speaking about the 7% sales tax on 10% of their earnings - at $20,000,000.00 annual vs $64,000.00 annual that equates to $2,000,000.00 x 7% = $140,000 tax revenue (in addition to profit revenue for the individual businesses) in contrast to (lets say 20% of earnings) $12,800.00 (or lets use the national average ust posted today) $45,000.00 (roughly) $45,000.00 7% = 3,150.00 tax revenue or at the lower figure 12,800.00 x 7% =896.00 tax revenue.

so with the rich paying out $2,000,000.00 annual per person just in sales tax alone, forgetting all the other money they are taxed on, it is a losing arguement to say they are not paying their "fair share" When you account for ALL taxes paid by the "rich" (one or more will apply and is not all inclusive: Property tax, sales tax, business tax, self employment tax, federal income tax, state tax, local tax, county tax, luxury tax, capital gains tax, etc) they will most assuredly fall in line with what the rest of us pay at a Minimum. "Most" rich people pay far more in taxes than the rest of us. It is the "exception to the rule" that politicians throw in our faces to make us resent ALL rich people.

Who is getting the shaft? we all are and it is about time we use reason and common sense to recognize that instead of listening to whomever is the "flavor of the day" politically.

Thanks for taking the time to read this

You could be right!, Just like a vampire this law will have to have a Stake in the heart after the 2012 Election!... That will be the only way to kill it for sure!... The Blood sucker in the White House will also Be GONE TOO!...

CAL USA -

Roy Wilson made his point as a counter to someone who said Thomas should recuse himself. It seemed intuitive that he was saying Kagan should recuse as well. That is how I interpreted it.

And you live in California. I dont have to say anything else. The only people who want to live there are progressives and young teenage girls who have aspirations of stardom! The only hope the young girls have is the surgically enhanced flotation devices. Ms Pelosi will be in the air in her super 747.

It's a dirty job, but someone has to live here. As far as who else lives out here, you might be surprised. We have almost all the technology companies and more than half of the Fortune 100 companies; Apple, HP, Cisco, Qualcomm, EBay, Google, Oracle, Amazon, etc. We have some of the best universities in the world, Stanford, UCSD, UCLA, Caltech. We have our share of progressives, but we have fair mix of conservatives also, and that's the way it should be. Lord knows we also have more than our share of pretty girls. I won't apologize for that. We are also the leading agricultural state. In fact, California is generally recognized as the 6th largest economy in the world. The next time you feel like bashing us remember, the rest of the country will not recover until California does. We always lead the way.

I have an idea, why doesn't the entire Supreme Court recuse themselves and we can just throw ObamaScare out with the bath water and start over???

California is the 8th largest economy in the world. California has been slipping and is becoming less relevant in the U.S. Economy. The overreaching regulations in California are forcing companies and citizens to leave. The cost of living in California is insane as is the cost of doing business. No one in their right mind would hold up California as a shining example of success.

As for all your high tech companies... they are moving out of state or chosing to expand in other states instead of staying in California. See Texas for where your population and Jobs are going.

The Girls are hot though :)

I don't approve of the healthcare law. It is overreaching and will be a financial burden to all of us. You don't have to believe me, just wait and see. The costs will not go down. they will go up. 9% already so far this year alone.

What should have been a targeted bill became a bloated wonder that will have far reaching repercussions. All you have to do is look at medicare, medicade, Social Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (to name a few)

Stay Jolly, the vermin on the left and their blind lemmings have no other recourse.

I guess you want Sotomayor out also?

Then Kagan can recuse herself as well.

Who are crybabies? I do not like the Healthcare bill and it is already pushing up costs.

You are obviously vindictive and should not be participating in this forum because you are biased. Perhaps you should recuse yourself?

I am sure it makes you warm inside to call names and be hateful. I am also sure you use the same tired line that everyone is a "racist" if they disagree with the Policies of Obama's Administration. Im betting you call Republicans "hateful"

You are, without a doubt, hypocritical.

p.s. the more you spew hate, the less someone will take you seriously.

What a dumb post. Insurance costs have already been rising as a direct result of Obamacare. America cannot tell its citizens they have to buy a product just because they exist. This Obamacare is a monstrosity and an insult to this country.

And then there are those of us who have Medicare Advantage. WE WILL BE WITHOUT the Insurance Plan that we like. CONTRARY to Obama's promise of "If you like your Insurance you can keep it"

Another Obama LIE!!

Insurance premiums were rising before Obama got elected and at a higher rate than 9% a year. So to blame that on the health care law is bs.

Slodan--you will not be without an insurance plan you will have medicare. I guess you think it is a good thing to pay these medicare advantage companies a subsidy to run the plan and then pay them more than the doctors accepting regular medicare. Talk about a waste of money.

My mother has straight medicare with a supplement and my Dad had a medicare advantage plan so I know very well about both. I can not understand why someone would want to go into an HMO rather than having the freedom of choice that you get from medicare. While my father was sick we were fighting with the insurance company to get him to the best doctors. The doctor from the "network" said he would not touch him for fear of him dropping dead on the table. The doctor we went to (who also participated with the HMO but not our network was one of the best in the field) performed the procedure without a problem and was very successful. What if he had died while we were fighting the HMO? That is why medicare advantage sucks it puts a bureaucracy in between the patient and the doctor.

It is spelled Pelosi and I did not know her brother-in-law works for one of the solar panel companies. That said, it does not surprise me. Liberals love to complain about 'big oil" and its subsidies and yet we give out tons of subsidies to "big green" and they say nothing. (while STILL ranting about big oil)

I don't know about you, but I can't get around town on a solar panel and I can't afford an extra $5,000.00 to buy a hybrid that gets a few miles more to the gallon and costs more in maintenance than my current vehicle. I can, however, afford the gas on my "paid for"gasoline consuming car.

In todays world, we seem to think that because we can comment online in a fraction of a second that we will conquer new technology at lightning speed. How long have cars been around? how many of them still break down? And we expect to re-invent the "hybrid" wheel in a year or two? I am all for green tech research and development but it will not take over oil in the near or mid-near future.

HYPOCRITE: Are you really that myopic and narrow minded??? Green energy is NEW TECHNOLOGY. It needs subsidizing to get it off the ground. Big Oil and Big Coal are doing just fine, thank you very much. Why do we give Exxon Mobil millions when they are already the WEALTHIEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD??? You're damn right that I rant about subsidies to Big Oil and all the rest. Not to mention the military contractors that screw the taxpayer out of countless billions.

If everyone was a short sighted as you, we'd all be riding around in horse drawn carts with big old wooden wheels. Look where the auto was 100 years ago. It was in it's infancy and lot's of people thought it was a joke and would never grow in popularity. Hence the saying "Get a horse". Remember??? Had out government not invested in good roads at a century ago, the auto would never have gotten anywhere. Those roads were a huge subsidy to the car companies.

Look at all the other technologies that needed help getting off the ground. Had we listed to Jimmy Carter 35 years ago, we would not be in the jamb we are today. Nobody wants to call it like it is.

calm down ozzie... I don't want you to stroke out while freaking out over me.

Who says I am short sighted? perhaps you didn't read my entire post?

I pointed out the hypocrisy of subsidies for "big green" vs "big oil" because instead of saying "about time" liberals continue to rant about subsidies for "big oil"

Short sighted? How about Liberals accidentally throwing out the baby with the bath water when it comes to regulations? we lose jobs overseas because of liberal policies that force companies out of the U.S. Where do you think these Oil Companies would be without those subsidies? Regardless of how much profit they make. If you, personally, can make $2,000,000.00 and live in the U.S. or you can, personally, make $5,000,000.00 and live in England... where would you live?

I said specifically... I am FOR Green Technology. BUT I am not for it at the price of everything else. When did we lose perspective? when did we lose common sense? We should be looking at Drilling and becoming Oil Independent WHILE advancing green tech.

As far as "BIG OIL" and "BIG GREEN" you do realize they are both dangerous right? Have any idea how many lobbiests are wining and dining congress for their piece of the pie? I think "Big Green" is going to be a nasty little monster if we arent careful.

Try actually reading my post next time. I am neither myopic or short sighted.

SOCTUS As in sock it to us?