Shameful Republican Obstructionism

The widely praised and bipartisan Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sought to lower the serious unemployment among returning military veterans, giving grants to federal, state, and local agencies, which in turn would hire veterans -- giving priority to those who served on or after 9/11 -- to work as first-responders and in conservation jobs at national parks.

The bill was fully paid for and entirely bipartisan. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) wrote much of the bill himself, and Murray incorporated all of his ideas into the legislation.

And yet, all but five Senate Republicans, using a filibuster, voted to kill it anyway today. Even Senator Burr sided with his party to defeat the bill, even though it was filled with his own provisions.
Why? Senator Murray's bill was a decent and practical way to help our soldiers returning home. The content of the bill was supported by both parties. But Republicans think it's more important in an election year to deny Democrats anything that might be considered a success or accomplishment. Shame on them.

Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class -- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected. The difference -- 2 million people-- represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
There was no immediate response from the administration.
The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.
Starting in 2014, the new health care law requires virtually every legal resident of the U.S. to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty. The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.
The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion when fully in effect in 2016.

Bat man wrote:

Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class -- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected. The difference -- 2 million people-- represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
There was no immediate response from the administration.
The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.
Starting in 2014, the new health care law requires virtually every legal resident of the U.S. to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty. The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.
The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion when fully in effect in 2016.

I think your assumption is invalid.
Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes using Obamacare. The people that decide not to participate by purchasing insurance are raising their own taxes. They would not be taxed if they do the right thing and participate by purchasing insurance to cover them in a medical emergency so the rest of us don't have to pay for their care.

Yes, his line of reasoning only makes sense if you think penalties for littering, speeding, drunk driving, or engaging in other irresponsible behavior are also “taxes.”

Unlike taxes, this penalty is avoidable
Taxes are, for the most part, involuntary. We pay taxes on our income and when we buy things. The only way to avoid taxes is to earn less money and consume less. Penalties and fines, however, are quite different. We can avoid fines by avoiding bad behavior.

The individual mandate presents people with a choice: Either have health insurance or pay an annual penalty. The only people who will pay this penalty are those who willfully neglect to take responsibility for getting health insurance—and then stick the rest of us with the bill when they get sick or injured.

The penalty will only apply to people who can afford health insurance but would rather have taxpayers — you and me — bail them out when they need medical attention.

The individual mandate is grounded in conservative principles of individual responsibility. The idea was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and first implemented in law by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

There is only one thing that genuine conservatives don't like about this idea, that it was passed when a Democrat was president.

In the mean time, Republicans have totally fucked our returning veterans simply because they can't bear the thought of a good law being passed while Obama is president.

bob wrote:

The widely praised and bipartisan Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sought to lower the serious unemployment among returning military veterans, giving grants to federal, state, and local agencies, which in turn would hire veterans -- giving priority to those who served on or after 9/11 -- to work as first-responders and in conservation jobs at national parks.
The bill was fully paid for and entirely bipartisan. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) wrote much of the bill himself, and Murray incorporated all of his ideas into the legislation.
And yet, all but five Senate Republicans, using a filibuster, voted to kill it anyway today. Even Senator Burr sided with his party to defeat the bill, even though it was filled with his own provisions.
Why? Senator Murray's bill was a decent and practical way to help our soldiers returning home. The content of the bill was supported by both parties. But Republicans think it's more important in an election year to deny Democrats anything that might be considered a success or accomplishment. Shame on them.

Its the hypocrisy of the Right, Bob. Another example - Republicans denounced Obama a few months back in regard to the Keystone Pipeline bringing oil shale out of Canada thru the US to the refineries in Port Arthur Texas saying the delaying the pipeline would keep the US dependent upon foreign oil. Republicans everywhere were furious. ED Markey [D] from Mass introduced a bill in the House saying that all oil brought out of Canada would stay in the US for our domestic consumption. When it was brought up for a vote in the House every Republican congressman voted against it. Pure, unadulterated Republican hypocrisy. Just like our veterans, Boehner used them pushing 'supplementals' in the House to keep them in Iraq not including the cost of the war in the actual budget but increasing the national debt by close to a trillion dollars and they are using them now simply to try to defeat Obama.

bob wrote:

In the mean time, Republicans have totally fucked our returning veterans simply because they can't bear the thought of a good law being passed while Obama is president.

Don't our returning veteran get their healthcare from the Veterans Administration(VA)?

Boy Wonder wrote:

<quoted text>I think your assumption is invalid.
Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes using Obamacare. The people that decide not to participate by purchasing insurance are raising their own taxes. They would not be taxed if they do the right thing and participate by purchasing insurance to cover them in a medical emergency so the rest of us don't have to pay for their care.

That is the most ignorant comment that has been made on Topix in years, Lol

bob wrote:

Yes, his line of reasoning only makes sense if you think penalties for littering, speeding, drunk driving, or engaging in other irresponsible behavior are also “taxes.”

Unlike taxes, this penalty is avoidable
Taxes are, for the most part, involuntary. We pay taxes on our income and when we buy things. The only way to avoid taxes is to earn less money and consume less. Penalties and fines, however, are quite different. We can avoid fines by avoiding bad behavior.

The individual mandate presents people with a choice: Either have health insurance or pay an annual penalty. The only people who will pay this penalty are those who willfully neglect to take responsibility for getting health insurance—and then stick the rest of us with the bill when they get sick or injured.

The penalty will only apply to people who can afford health insurance but would rather have taxpayers — you and me — bail them out when they need medical attention.

The individual mandate is grounded in conservative principles of individual responsibility. The idea was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and first implemented in law by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

There is only one thing that genuine conservatives don't like about this idea, that it was passed when a Democrat was president.

In the mean time, Republicans have totally fucked our returning veterans simply because they can't bear the thought of a good law being passed while Obama is president.

Ah yes Bob, people can also avoid paying income tax by laying back on their subsidized ass and collect every "entitlement" they could hope for.

Hey, foul mouth DUD, you were quick to put up a "Clueless" light bulb in judgement of my comment but are you smart enough to answer my question?

Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>Don't our returning veteran get their healthcare from the Veterans Administration(VA)?

The bill before the Senate that the Republicans defeated was a JOBs BILL aimed at providing assistance to our veterans returning home.

Veteran wrote:

Hey, foul mouth DUD, you were quick to put up a "Clueless" light bulb in judgement of my comment but are you smart enough to answer my question?

Yes, veterans get their medical care paid by the VA in some circumstances, not all. Probably the reason your comment was judged CLUELESS is because the posting was dealing with a completely different subject of jobs for veterans.

Here is another article explaining what happened and why.

Veterans Job Corps Act dies in Senate

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 19, 2012 13:04:55 EDT

The Veterans Job Corps Act died in the Senate Wednesday on a procedural vote when 40 senators balked at the $1 billion price tag for a measure that would have provided employment for veterans in conservation work, in Veterans Affairs Department cemeteries, and helped in police and fire departments.

Supporters needed 60 votes and got only 58 to overcome an objection by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that the $1 billion in costs, although paid for through budgetary gimmicks, would have pushed VA over the spending limits set by last year’s Budget Control Act.

The vote brought an early end to the measure. While the bill was a top priority of President Obama and many veterans’ organizations, the House of Representatives had no plans to take it up for consideration this year.

Sessions said he is as concerned as anyone about unemployed veterans, but doesn’t see the need to add $1 billion in spending to the $109 billion VA budget for 2013. New programs, if required, could be funded by cutting something else, he said.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chief sponsor of the bill, said veterans won’t see the issue the same way.“Veterans don’t care to hear about why we cannot support them,” he said.“Veterans don’t care about a budget point of order.”

Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>Don't our returning veteran get their healthcare from the Veterans Administration(VA)?

Yes they do. This was a non-controversial jobs bill for veterans that the Republicans killed - even though there was a majority vote to pass it.

The use of fillibusters and anonymous holds has become so routine for Republicans that the Senate is effectively a useless governing body. They use the filibuster to make it nearly impossible to pass even the most routine and agreed upon bills - like helping our returning vets get a job.

The filibuster forces the majority party to come up with 60 votes, rather than the simple majority ordinarily required to pass legislation. Since 2007, the GOP has filibustered legislation that had majority support 78 times. Although it's the Republicans that are the bad guys crippling our government right now, the Democrats will surely want their payback if the GOP wins a majority in the Senate in November. Bad news for all of us either way.

It's a sad day when the politicians start the war and the young people go to fight come back with both mental and physical injuries and then have to wonder if they will be able to support their families.The only problem should be how to connect these people with their employers in a timely fashion.
I wonder if the Republicans ever think about their actions when there is another suicide of a depressed veteran.Every person has a family and that family does not put a dollar amount on the life that has been cut way too short.

The republican party is aborting Romney as we speak......late turm .

KyHorseFly wrote:

<quoted text> The bill before the Senate that the Republicans defeated was a JOBs BILL aimed at providing assistance to our veterans returning home.

If you wanna do a bill to assist them, assist them out of Afghanistan tomorrow!

Pirate wrote:

It's a sad day when the politicians start the war and the young people go to fight come back with both mental and physical injuries and then have to wonder if they will be able to support their families.The only problem should be how to connect these people with their employers in a timely fashion.
I wonder if the Republicans ever think about their actions when there is another suicide of a depressed veteran.Every person has a family and that family does not put a dollar amount on the life that has been cut way too short.

Being a veteran myself I would have appreciated a job when I got home but I didn't have one waiting so I went out into the world, got myself a job, did good and am now retired enjoying the fruits of my labor! I think you did much the same didn't you Mr. Pirate? The point is, when you are broke you have to make sacrifices on your spending until you get caught up and I think that is what the Repubs have on their mind. Here is an idea, lets get Barack and Michelle to cut back on their travel around the world, even leave the dog at home, that would save millions! And just today Barack is spending $70 million on 7 TV stations in Lybia apologizing for something he, we, have done. His excessive spending has pissed off everybody and they use every avenue to put a stop to it. Some good ideas, some bad--it is not a perfect world!

Nice attitude, I hope the treatment of these veterans don't put a bad taste in young men's mouths that keeps them from enlisting the next time we need someone to fight for the USA!

I guess we can just tell them it was a budget thing with republicans!

Oh really wrote:

Nice attitude, I hope the treatment of these veterans don't put a bad taste in young men's mouths that keeps them from enlisting the next time we need someone to fight for the USA!
I guess we can just tell them it was a budget thing with republicans!

Most of the enlistees only want a paycheck, a place to sleep, something to eat, to learn a trade and some comradeship from people their own age! They can't get much out of our economy because of the mess Mr. Obama has made so they take their chances in a war! There will always be volunteers that have a passion for the USA tho, thank goodness!

you are an idiot wrote:

<quoted text>
If you wanna do a bill to assist them, assist them out of Afghanistan tomorrow!

Which idiotic republicans should Obama listen to, the ones like you that want them out right now or the ones that want the US to stay such as McCain?

That's why he doesn't listen to republicans, they speak with forked tongues, doesn't matter what Obama does, you'll give him hell.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Which idiotic republicans should Obama listen to, the ones like you that want them out right now or the ones that want the US to stay such as McCain?
That's why he doesn't listen to republicans, they speak with forked tongues, doesn't matter what Obama does, you'll give him hell.

Who wants to post the story that Romney wants to be the diplomat in foreign affairs?The only things I have seen or read is how the President is too soft.The last thing we need is another war.