Advertisement

Discussions

Reader comments

On Letter: Selective Obama

Comments

parrothead8 9 months ago

The House also voted to delay the employer mandate, Ken, so your point is moot. The President did not act unilaterally once that House vote became complete.

0

jhawkinsf 9 months ago

Jafs, you want me to define an apologist for Obama. Well, for starters, a lot of it has to with the sum of your comments. You have 19,000 and I'm nearing 7,000. After a while, we get to know what positions people will likely take. In my 7,000 comments, I could point out several dozen where I was critical of Israel. I could point out another few dozen that could be interpreted in no other way as than being neutral. Yet, you, others, rightly see a pro-Israel bias. Why? Because when taken as a whole, that's exactly what exists. The same is true with you and your pro-Obama bias. Sure you occasionally are critical of him. Sometimes neutral. But taken as a whole, no other conclusion can be reached than your very strong pro-Obama bias. And yes, bias is the correct word for both your stand and mine.

You will claim that you come to his defense when he is wrongly attacked. Maybe. Just the other day, Brownback was being criticized for events that happened prior to him being governor. When I noted that, the thread went strangely silent. Your response? None. Bush has been harshly criticized, mostly for good cause. But not always. And when that happens your response is ... silence.

Let me break out my crystal ball for a second. To the best of my memory, you've not stated how you've voted in specific elections. But I'd be shocked if you voted for Brownback, Jenkins, Roberts, Moran. I'd be shocked if you voted for Romney, McCain, Bush in either 2000 or 2004. Are these really just good guesses? Or are they correct based on your comment history? Earlier in this thread, you were simply unable to give credit to Bush for sharply increasing deportations while you were quick to give credit to Obama for doing the same. You've said Obama inherited a mess when it comes to the economy. No recognition that Bush inherited a mess when it comes to immigration.

You remind me of something that happened while I was in SF. The most progressive city in America where a Republican couldn't get elected dogcatcher, yet when some progressive policy fails, they blame Sacramento if there are Republicans in charge of either chamber of the legislature. If both are Dem. controlled, then blame the Gov. If he's Dem., blame Washington. If they're Dem., blame past Republicans. Never, Never, Never, look in the mirror and examine the possibility that it's the policy itself that is a failure. Never do that.

0

Pheps 9 months, 1 week ago

Now that the Teamster's think Obamacare is a disaster, watch out.

0

funkdog1 9 months, 1 week ago

"Refusing to enforce immigration laws?" Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president ever! Turn off the FOX news! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/advocates-push-obama-to-halt-aggressive-deportation-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2

Trumbull 9 months, 1 week ago

GAO points out that some 20 to 25 percent of those receiving the “earned income credit”

I'd say this is pretty low compared to the people who "cheat" on their taxes. So before we get self righteous about what is cheating....here a few things that are taxable income: Cash received for things like yard-work, garage sale if sold at a gain, ebay sales if sold at gain, fantasy sports winnings, gambling, etc.

We collectively dismiss these things as not taxable, not to bother with, but technically, they very well could be taxable.

1

skull 9 months, 1 week ago

FOX news Obama scandal hour...is this impeachable? We ask our expert Michelle Bachman next...

6

In_God_we_trust 9 months, 1 week ago

"Kind of shows you how unpopular Obamacare is."

It also shows that President Obama wants to delay negative press and people's negative opinions about Obamacare, turning against Democrats who voted for the Obamacare monstrosity. The President knows that negative opinions on Obamacare will impact the ability of Democrats to be re-elected in 2014. So he would like to delay the negative election impact till after the election, as much as possible.

5

Richard07 9 months, 1 week ago

If you think about it it's really a moot point. For decades if a particular facet of enforcement of some governmental function was found to be "unpopular" with the new administration the White House could by proxy simply if not outright ignore the function/legislation choose to simply direct the appropriate people to under emphasize or "back burner" that activity. If during the budget talks, let's say, the IRS budget is trimmed, Treasury could cuts resources for auditing sharply which of course, would lead to far less audits. No law is broken in that case. Kind of shows you how unpopular Obamacare is. If this were an obvious constitutional or impeachable issue, don't you think the Republicans would jump on it? Most Republicans are hoping this bill will implode before being fully operation. Just sayin.

0

Alyosha 9 months, 1 week ago

It would likely help the writer find answers to his question were he to actually think about and research the topic.

Here's a good Bloomberg piece on this very topic: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-03/does-obama-have-the-power-to-delay-his-mandate-.html -- Not so hard to find. One has, though, not to be operating from one's emotions, but rather using one's head, to look for and find the article.

Some salient points:

"Section 1513 of the law, which lays out the employer mandate, states unambiguously that it is set to begin Dec. 31, 2013. However, that isn't technically the part of the law that Mark J. Mazur, an assistant secretary in the Department of the Treasury, said was being deferred."

"One way to read this -- and the way it was probably intended -- was that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, would determine when in 2014 employers would file their insurance reports. That's consistent with her discretion under other parts of the law to determine how employers file. Under this interpretation, employers would still be required to insure their employees for all of 2014 even if Sebelius had them file on New Year's Eve.

"Another way to read the passage is as a blank check to postpone the mandate by as long as a year. That comes from the key part: "during a calendar year, shall, at such time as the Secretary may provide."

Yet, a third way to read it: If "during a calendar year" is read to modify "employees" and not "at such time" then the Secretary could have the power to defer the mandate indefinitely."

Try actually thinking and researching before penning a letter. This letter writer clearly has no interest in finding out the facts; otherwise they would have done so, quite easily.

This letter writer — and most commenters here — is interested simply and unhelpfully with venting their unexamined emotions.

Which is a very bad way for a citizen to act when trying to enact public policy.

4

fmrl 9 months, 1 week ago

In his latest executive order he claims authority to shut down all communications in an emergency. Like Bush he signed an executive order claiming authority to suspend Constitutional government. I don't think there is anything Constitutional about executive orders or signing statements. Things are getting scary.

2

jhwk2008 9 months, 1 week ago

Do people enjoy being ignorant? The law (specifically, IRC Section 6055) states that the employer reports are due “at such time as the Secretary may prescribe.” This letter should have instead been titled "Selective Truth".

3

FastEddy 9 months, 1 week ago

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Barack Hussein Obama, January 2009 and January 2013.

Not so much.

6

boiled 9 months, 1 week ago

Fundamental Transformation.

1

Richard Heckler 9 months, 1 week ago

The wealthy so I read is the largest group of tax $$$$$$ violators in the world. Yet by keeping the IRS understaffed allows this crime to prevail. It called deregulation by default.

6

Jackie Jackasserson 9 months, 1 week ago

I am interested to know how people file and receive EIC fraudulently.

0

ChuckFInster 9 months, 1 week ago

But Ken, we're talking about Barack Obama. Barack can do as he wishes because we're all going to get lots of free stuff like health care, cars and don't forget the "Obama phone" ! Or it could be congress is still reading the bill to see what's in it.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.