Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Grant's Greatest Regret

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:19 AM
An interesting story, and well told. A good column from Jacoby.
In response to:

Killing Them Softly?

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:15 AM
So the tragedy here is that babies are dying slowly and painfully rather than dying more slowly and more painfully as God intended? Connor is right that it is immoral to allow this kind of backdoor euthanasia when actual euthanasia would accomplish the same thing better. He is right that we treat our dogs better. In the kinds of situations described above, we do not leave them to suffer, we allow for euthanasia. It is funny though for him to acknowledge that that counts as treating dogs better while arguing that babies should be put through the kind of pain we would not put a dog through.
That makes the Democrats devilishly clever. After all they already passed a bill in the Senate that would extend the middle class tax breaks. So all Republicans would have to do to foil the plan you describe is to not block that bill in the house. So your contention is that their strategy is to raise middle class taxes by getting Republicans to block the Democratic bill that would prevent that?
If you read the article you are not likely to learn much about what regulations the grinches are pushing. If you follow all of the links you find that the advocates are noting, correctly, that alcohol is heavy in calories. And the only regulation that is mentioned as possibly worth advocating is including calorie counts for alcoholic drinks on menus which already list calorie counts for other items. And why does Gunlock think there is some conflict between something reducing cardiac problems while increasing cancer risk? In life things sometimes have different effects.
Obama opposed Bush turning the Clinton surpluses into deficits. He did not prevent the debt ceiling being raised or demand concessions in order to raise it. By contrast, Obama inherited an economy in freefall with large, and growing deficits. There is no hypocrisy here whatsoever. Are you talking about the President unilaterally raising the debt ceiling? I don't remember McConnell supporting that. It would make him a hypocrite now when he is outraged by a less extreme idea, but I doubt he did that so I doubt that charge of hypocrisy is justified.
In response to:

Choke the Life out of Obamacare

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 3:42 PM
I suspect that people who could not afford health care because of a lack of insurance recognized that they would likely have better health results under Obamacare. And that other people who care about their fellow citizens thought that would be a good idea. I am not sure what you find mysterious about this. Then again I am not sure what freedom you think you are losing. Are you a boss who will lose control of how your employers use their health insurance?
In response to:

Choke the Life out of Obamacare

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 3:40 PM
So people in Russia, a very poor country, are in the same situation as people without health care in the US. And Norris' recommendation is to increase the number of Americans without health care?
In response to:

Professor Obama and the Constitution

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 12:05 PM
He is just saying that if Republican leaders lack the political courage to do what is right they can pass the buck in perpetuity and he will take the political hit away from them. That way, as they did before, they can guarantee that the debt ceiling is raised as needed while getting to vote against it. This is not a constitutional crisis. It is a crisis of Republican leadership being afraid to do what they know is right.
In response to:

Professor Obama and the Constitution

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 12:04 PM
I gather Murchison is not a constitutional scholar, not that that stops him critiquing Obama on this. But the debt ceiling is not a Constitutional obligation. Congress controls the purse strings through the bills it passes. Getting rid of the debt ceiling altogether wouldn't change that. And in fact the debt ceiling is a relatively recent addition in the country's history. Obama's particular proposal isn't even original to him. It came from Congressional Republican leaders who did not want to hurt the country by not raising the debt ceiling, but did not want to face the politics of raising it, and so they passed the buck to Obama.
In response to:

Doing Away With Debt Ceiling Drama

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 11:59 AM
This article started so well, and then went over a cliff somehow. The US did not always have a balanced budget before it created the Fed. Instead Congress authorized debt as it passed bills. This was considered inefficient and so the Debt Ceiling was created. That is one bill authorizing borrowing for a large number of bills rather than doing it bill by bill. And yes what lenders care about is whether one meets ones obligations, that is whether one pays them as they come due. That is precisely the issue that affects the bond markets. But Schiff is right that Congress controls spending through the bills it passes, and thinking it is the debt ceiling that does it is a mistake.
In response to:

Obama: More Peas for You!

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 4:41 PM
Again, what part of what I said do you think this opposes?
Previous 11 - 20 Next