• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment


Some serious obfuscation and lies contained within your post

If you're going to quote the CBO you might want to quote their other reports which show the costs of Obamacare have DOUBLED since the initial legislation was passed. Oh and we don't get to keep our doctors and current insurance plans either like promised. Obamacare does not have the support of the American People. It needs to be defunded and repealed and hopefully someone outside of the 2 party system illusion will show some leadership and save the country from this nightmare.

We don't have the money for any of this. None of it is sustainable. That's the plan however. Use Obamacare to gather personal and medical information on every citizen. Bankrupt and destroy the current system. Rebuild it with universal HC. Total government control over every aspect of our lives. All of it unconstitutional. But who are we kidding? When was the last time an Obama supporter gave a rat's ^%$ about The Constitution? Never.
 
Bronson said:
Look at Obama's record

Nothing more needs to be said
Click to expand...

On January 21st 2009, Obama's only record as being POTUS was that he had to take the oath of office twice because he failed getting it right the first time.

No one called for the impeachment of Obama for his first failure on day one as being POTUS.
 
That's a valid opinion which really supports the idea that these legislative issues should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate. That way, the people of this country can made a decision on the merits - not some German economist.

How many jobs bills have been passed by (R)s in the House since they took control of the House in Jan 2011? - Yahoo! Answers

 
Deuce said:
What link?
Click to expand...
Don't play dumb with me, Deuce. If you don't want to do this the right way, then I suggest you don't do it all.
 

Ah, my poor misguided friend. The house is indeed passing bills. It is the court liar, I mean jester, I mean Harry Reid who is blocking the Senate from voting on them.

You should change the channel, Rachel Maddow is lying to you.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . continues . . ." Indeed. As I said, no enforcement. The work requirement is gone.eace
Click to expand...

Ok. Then go ahead and gather evidence that this has actually been happening the way you think. Go show us states just letting people collect welfare forever without working.
 
Dooble said:
Don't play dumb with me, Deuce. If you don't want to do this the right way, then I suggest you don't do it all.
Click to expand...

You've wildly misunderstood what I was saying. You guys put some effort into it, then I will. That was always the deal. You haven't done it yet.
 
Deuce said:
You've wildly misunderstood what I was saying. You guys put some effort into it, then I will. That was always the deal. You haven't done it yet.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're trying to say, and neither do you. If you don't know how to do this the right way either, then I suggest you give up and do something else.
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Then go ahead and gather evidence that this has actually been happening the way you think. Go show us states just letting people collect welfare forever without working.
Click to expand...

All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.eace
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Because really, if you think Texas and Alabama elected to waive welfare work requirements, I don't know what to tell you. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Prove it.

Because really, if you think Texas and Alabama elected to waive welfare work requirements, I don't know what to tell you. :lamo
Click to expand...

Ah. I see I'm dealing with a bad faith poster. I'll be more careful now. All the states who sought work requirement changes are acting as if the requirement was effectively waived.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
All of them. Work requirement is not being enforced and no one has lost welfare.eace
Click to expand...

This was a cost savings for states. Like is typical, people throw this out without understanding the specifics. That requirement meant states had to cough up money for education and training that they didn't have. They petitioned Obama to suspend the requirement. It's cheaper for the states, and has nothing to do with wanting more people on welfare.
 

It has to do with waiving the work requirement.
 
Jack Hays said:
It has to do with waiving the work requirement.
Click to expand...

And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.
 

How Obama has gutted welfare reform - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections › Welfare Reform‎
Sep 6, 2012 - To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to ... The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ...

"The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be."eace
 
Boo Radley said:
And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.
Click to expand...

And you believe the POTUS has the authority to just waive it rather than rewriting the law?eace
 

Again, I told you why. That's the part you have to address.
 
Boo Radley said:
And that's what I addressed. That requirement includes paying for school and training. Just waving it is cheaper that rewriting the law. But there are still efforts to encourage looking for work.
Click to expand...

Cheaper for who? Obviously not for the federal gov't. The states are naturally quite happy to take "free" federal assistance money (to be spent in their state) without having to match it with state money for education or job training expenses.

The executive branch does not write the law. Simply because Obama is too lazy, or lacks legislative support, does not not relieve him of the need to enforce the law as written and funded by congress.
 
Jack Hays said:
And you believe the POTUS has the authority to just waive it rather than rewriting the law?eace
Click to expand...

It's what the states asked him to do. So they thought he did. But laws don't have to be enforced. For example, a police officer doesn't have to stop you for speeding.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's what the states asked him to do. So they thought he did. But laws don't have to be enforced. For example, a police officer doesn't have to stop you for speeding.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that setting aside an important federal statute is a little different. To say that "laws don't have to be enforced" is to say that we're no longer a nation of laws.
 

Actually there as well. A single payer more adequately pays for Medicare and Medicaid patients with proper funding.

But it certainly costs us less. And puts more money in our pockets, which certainly doesn't hurt the economy.
 
Jack Hays said:
Seems to me that setting aside an important federal statute is a little different. To say that "laws don't have to be enforced" is to say that we're no longer a nation of laws.
Click to expand...
No, it's saying we can use common sense when need be.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. I see I'm dealing with a bad faith poster. I'll be more careful now. All the states who sought work requirement changes are acting as if the requirement was effectively waived.eace
Click to expand...

Provide any evidence of this. Bad faith? You're making a broad claim that work requirements are basically gone, and I'm just to take your word for it? :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…