Uncategorized

US House Defunds Obamacare

In a rare display of intestinal fortitude, the “Republican-controlled” U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a two-month budget resolution that defunds Barack Obama’s socialized medicine law. All but one Republican supported the resolution – while all but two Democrats voted against it. Of course the GOP wasn’t unified on…

In a rare display of intestinal fortitude, the “Republican-controlled” U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a two-month budget resolution that defunds Barack Obama’s socialized medicine law.

All but one Republican supported the resolution – while all but two Democrats voted against it.

Of course the GOP wasn’t unified on the issue, as “Republican” Speaker John Boehner and GOP “Leader” Eric Cantor originally sought to pass a non-binding resolution that would have given the U.S. Senate the option to restore Obamacare funding if it wanted.

Nonetheless, Boehner took a victory lap following the vote.

“You’ve got businesses all over the country who are not hiring because of the impact of this law,” he said. “You’ve got other businesses who are reducing the hours for their employees because of this law. And so, our message to the United States Senate is real simple: the American people don’t want to the government shut down and they don’t want ObamaCare.”

For once, he’s right …

Public support for Obamacare has plummeted in recent months as the law’s adverse impact on the economy has become readily apparent. Also the administration has been forced to delay key provisions of the act – demonstrating its lack of readiness for prime time.

Still, Democrats are solidly behind Obamacare – and have made it clear they are not going to pass a two-month budget resolution which defunds it.

“I have said it before but it seems to bear repeating: the Senate will not pass any bill that defunds or delays Obamacare,” U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said.

TWO-MONTH BUDGET RESOLUTION (Roll Call Vote)

Related posts

Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks

92 comments

Smirks September 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm

This makes 42 times. I’m sure it’ll be just as successful as the other 41.

Props to Scott Rigell (R-VA) for having the balls to vote no. At least one Republican is tired of beating the dead horse.

Reply
the dead horse September 20, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Thank you — because it REALLY does HURT!

Reply
BrokenWindows September 20, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Do they think this will survive the senate and obama’s veto pen?

Whatever happened to repeal and replace? I’d love to see republicans come up with a better health care reform plan. But I guess they’re all out of ideas.

Reply
Jan September 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm

They never offered an alternative in the first place other than. People without insurance should be prepared to die, and screw old sick people unless you are a member of congress. Republicans hate everyone’s government benefits, except their own.

Reply
Smirks September 20, 2013 at 3:53 pm

What the Republican party wants you to believe:

“What we’re trying to communicate is, ‘No, you’re actually not required to buy health insurance. […] You might have to pay a fine, but that’s going to be cheaper for you and better for you.” -Evan Feinberg, Generation Opportunity

What the Republican party actually believes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

Reply
Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:17 am

Yep. They cheered being responsible for themselves. Good deal…. Now, that’s not what the dumbass headline at YOUTUBE said, but if you listen to the whole thing, they cheered for liberty, not death.

Reply
CL September 20, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Will you ever stop peddling that lie? You may not like the alternatives for ideological reasons, but your post is 100% BS. For one thing, the proposal of the most recent GOP VP nominee would exempt any “old sick people” from the proposed reforms and just let them keep Medicare. Entitlements are bankrupting this country. One party is serious about trying to stop that. The other wants to demagogue while making the fiscal situation even worse.

Reply
Jan September 20, 2013 at 6:40 pm

I am not talking only about old sick people now. I am talking about old sick people in the very near future. Republicans know this proposal is bad for senior citizens. That is why they hoped current seniors would not care what happened to their children and grandchildren when they became senior citizens.
The Republican proposal is the repeal of Medicare for everyone under the age of 55 and replacing it with a voucher scheme that may or may not provide enough money for them to have reasonable health care. So yes the Republican proposal is to ultimately screw old sick people and leave them at the mercy of the private insurance industry who never wanted to insure them in the first place.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not bankrupting this country. Getting rid of those program will bankrupt this country, by sending our most vulnerable citizens spiraling into poverty; and forcing their children and grandchildren to pay for their care or watch them suffer, rather than cost sharing so that all of us can plan for a better future.
We may have to raise taxes from their 50 year low to help pay some of the cost. We may have to raise the retirement age to reduce the cost, we may have to cut subsidies to oil companies or reduce defense spending; or we may have to go to a single payer health care system, if nothing else works. But yes the Republican proposal is in fact to abandon old people and disabled people and to me that is unacceptable.
To coin a Republican phrase, you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

Reply
CL September 20, 2013 at 9:27 pm

So by old sick people you meant not old people. Of course. And on its current trajectory, you can keep deluding yourself, but Medicare’s trustees project the program to be bankrupt by 2024 at the latest, and as early as 2016. So it will not be there for future generations, and it’s Dems and their slavish devotion to the statist status quo that are dooming these future old people.

On an extremism scale of 1 to 10, with a 10 being something like the silly state of nature you describe, Ryan’s bipartisan plan was about a 2.5. That you still use such overheated rhetoric about such a milquetoast proposal shows just how unhinged from reality the left has become.

vicupstate September 20, 2013 at 9:35 pm

Yeah, it might be bankrupt provided nothing is done. Jan provided several examples of how to avoid that. Care to comment on those, or do you need Rush to tell you how to respond?

CL September 21, 2013 at 9:12 am

Raising taxes is not really a solution, it is a cop out and does absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem. And if you look at historic revenue rates, they stay fairly constant regardless of the tax rates, because people divert capital in response to tax policies. So even if you ignore the negative economic consequences of tax increases, it would not solve the problem. I agree the retirement age needs to be raised, and I won’t claim you hate old people for proposing it.

Jan September 22, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Raising taxes is certainly part of the solution and is certainly not a cop out. The underlying problem we are attempting to fix is making sure the Medicare System has the resources with which to provide “guaranteed affordable quality health care to those who are too old or too sick to work.” Noting more.
And as I said before, I do not think Republicans hate old people or wish them any ill will. I think they just don’t care what happens to them.

CL September 23, 2013 at 8:44 am

Costs are skyrocketing against any index you want to use, and your answer is to jack up taxes as well? There are serious structural problems in these programs and you cannot just throw money at it. I hate to break it to you, but eventually you will run out of other people’s money.

Smirks September 21, 2013 at 6:42 am

Unhinged the left has become? The GOP is still pushing for high risk pools that do not exist in all 50 states? Federal funding for exorbitantly high cost insurance does not stop insurance companies from dropping people with “pre-existing conditions” but instead incentivizes it.

Vouchers will fuck old people. The voucher system when first introduced by Paul Ryan did not have ANY language to ensure the vouchers so much as rose with the rate of inflation, let alone the rate of rising cost of health care that has been going up past the rate of inflation for a long time. Subsequent proposals gave a half assed attempt at it.

Insurance across state lines has a potential to drag the quality of insurance down just like Delaware has done for credit cards. Tort reform really just limits payouts to victims of malpractice while malpractice insurance rarely goes down significantly as a result. Block-grant Medicaid is also a horrendous idea.

Republicans do not want to fix health care. If they delayed this bill it would be to get another year’s worth of repeal and defund doomed-from-the-start bills passed in the House just to die in the Senate. Their reforms are the same tired and lame excuses for reform that does not fix our mess of a system whatsoever but let’s them claim they tried. I’m not even sure why we are bringing up Ryan anyways as the little asshat bashed Obama for cutting $700 billion in Medicare spending that he himself wanted to cut. But someone who clearly plays politics in the worst way like that is actually interested in helping people get insurance? Nope. He’s about as interested in that as he is in helping wash dishes at the local shelter.

CL September 21, 2013 at 9:07 am

Ryan’s plan guaranteed the minimum benefits of Medicare and used the same growth rate as Obamacare. So I guess it is the Dems who hate old people and want them to die? And I know you two will not drop the talking point, but no one woul have gotten a voucher. The subsidy went to the insurer, just like my employer plan.

Jan September 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm

I don’t know whether Republicans are brain dead on this issue, or just think everyone else is too stupid to see through their crap. Medicare is guaranteed affordable adequate health insurance for people who are too old or too sick to work. “Ryancare” is not.

The goal of Ryan’s plan is to shift healthy seniors out of Medicare and over to private insurance, leaving only those people the Insurance industry does not want to insure in the Medicare system; and thus generating more profitable business for the private insurance industry. He knows that will drive Medicare cost per member and premiums through the roof, but he does not care because the “vouchers” or “subsidies” (the same thing) the Government will provide those people left in Medicare will not keep up with the increase. Ultimately those left in the Medicare system will not be able to afford the premiums, or Medicare will be forced to cut so many benefits that Medicare will become a worthless bankrupt plan; which was the plan all along. Anyone who believes otherwise after reading Ryan’s plan is a fool.
Obamas and Ryans projections are no where near the same. The key words are “target rates”. Obama’s projections assume healthy seniors will stay in the Medicare system and Ryan’s plan is to take them out of the Medicare systems and deliver them to the private insurance industry. Obama’s projected rates are obtainable. Ryan’s projected rates are just crap. The Medicare rates under Ryancare will be much higher than under current Medicare law.
The Republicans have offered no meaningful plans to make the health care system better. All their plans center on how the government can pay less money for health care without hurting insurance company profits. None of their plans are designed to make health care more available or more affordable to the average person or to expand coverage of those who cannot afford insurance. They are typical Republican plans. They want to cut benefits to the average citizen and increase the profits of the people who pay them money.

CL September 23, 2013 at 8:17 am

Ironic that you accuse others of being brain dead, when you are the one just recycling the same false talking points over and over again. Ryan’s plan is basically a replica of Medicare Advantage, which seems to have accomplished fairly well its goal of introducing modest amounts of competition into how the benefits are offered. Do you really think that the government is better at administering this program (or any program?) than the private sector? If the bids have to guarantee at least the level of benefits of Medicare, what possible objection could you have to making the process more competitive and efficient? At some point, one suspects your real objection is that it might work, and that would halt the Left’s push towards single payer. I think you might find, though, that the impending Obamacare disaster will do far more to wreck that dream than Republicans could.

And you are immune to fact checking, but Ryan’s rates are very similar to Obamacare’s target rates. I think his last proposal was a bit higher, but the last one I looked at closely was actually lower.

notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 10:39 am

The Advantage plans cost the government more than traditional Medicare. That’s a fact. Romney/Ryan hoped that no one would notice that the money they claimed was “stolen” from Medicare by the ACA came from reducing the government subsidies to Advantage plans. I’m a senior and I don’t want a stupid Silver Sneakers benefit in my Medicare. Is that what you think is a wise use of health care dollars, or are you somehow connected with private insurance?
And by the way Ryan proposed that that same “stolen” Medicare money be stolen from health care altogether.

CL September 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm

That is spin. From the linked article: “The Harvard researchers looked at the (limited and constricted) private-plan option already operating in Medicare today—a program called Medicare Advantage, created in 2003, which allows seniors to have their benefits provided through private insurers—and found that, on average, the Medicare Advantage plans cost far, far less than federally run fee-for-service Medicare.”

So private plans are cheaper and more efficient than the public counterparts. The benchmark (set by the government, by the way) is higher for private plans, which means the government pays more while seniors get better value(think liberals would like this, but apparently not in Obamaworld), but that is a policy choice. You could just as easily roll the savings into what the government pays and keep the benefits flat (rather than making them cheaper to the senior) while cutting the cost to the government. The important part is introducing competition and efficiency into the system.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/more-mediscare_649725.html?page=1

notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm

According to your linked article private plans are cheaper for enrollees, and that may be the case BECAUSE they are not cheaper for the government, which is why ACA phases out the subsidies to private companies and why the Weekly Standard prefers not to discuss the cost to the government.

The real spin here is that the GOP keeps trying to make the case that whatever they favor saves taxpayers money. Anyone paying attention during GOP administrations, especially during Bush43, when Medicare Advantage was dreamed up, knows that the GOP does not mind spending money if it benefits private interests, and that’s what MA does and what President Barack Hussein Obama has tried to curb in the ACA.

But don’t believe me. For a more comprehensive link than the snow job you posted, please see the entire WaPo article
and note the accompanying graphic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/Medicare-Advantage11.jpg), which clearly shows that Medicare Advantage plans cost the government more, which is what I said. Following the quote you posted:

How, exactly, can private Medicare plans be less expensive for seniors but more expensive for the government? David Cutler, one of the study authors, helpfully points out that it has to do with the difference between the cost of health benefits, and how much we pay for them. Right now, the federal government pays private plans are well beyond the actual cost of providing benefits.

Here’s why: Each year, the federal government sets a “benchmark” for how much it will pay health plans for each senior they enroll. The benchmark is routinely higher than the per-senior cost of traditional Medicare. If a health insurance company undercuts the benchmark and bids lower — as about 90 percent of health plans do — they net the difference as a rebate.

Medicare Advantage plans bid less than traditional Medicare, but they are paid more,” Cutler writes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/22/does-medicare-advantage-cost-less-or-does-it-cost-more/

CL September 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm

And I explained why Advantage costs the GOVERNMENT more. But the important part is that Advantage provides the same benefits as traditional Medicare at a lower cost and with more efficiency. You can spin and dodge all you want, but it is fact. What the government does with those savings is policy, not economics. Competition (modest as it is) beats central planning every time. I am actually surprised Advantage has worked as well as it has given how constrained it is. Just imagine if we worked to remove the system wide (and government created) barriers to a competitive market.

notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 5:09 pm

And I explained why Advantage costs the GOVERNMENT more. But the important part is that Advantage provides the same benefits as traditional Medicare at a lower cost and with more efficiency.

Re-read your first two sentences. They contradict each other. You say MA costs the government more and that the important part of that is that it (MA) provides the same benefits as traditional Medicare at a lower cost and with more efficiency.

Those statements not only contradict each other, but also they are YOUR conclusions, which you have not supported with primary source facts and therefore your statement “You can spin and dodge all you want, but it is fact,” looks a lot like spin itself. What you have stated as fact is not a verifiable fact at all.
The graphic in the WaPo article contains facts, which you have yet to explain. Go ahead.

CL September 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm

Reading comprehension is key. They do not contradict at all. Maa is both cheaper overall and more expensive to the government because of the policy choices of the government, not MA. To provide the same services as traditional Medicare, MA does it much cheaper. Full stop. To spin that into a negative, liberals use the benchmark for repaying MA. the benchmark is higher, meaning the profit margin for the MA insurers is higher than if the government could offer the same services at the same lower cost, which they obviously cannot. But government chose the benchmark and passes the savings to seniors.. That is a policy choice, as I noted above. They could pocket the savings to reduce government costs.

notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Tell all that to the guy who says his study was misrepresented by the Weekly Standard, David Cutler. http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/106324/cutler-chernew-medicare-study-ryan-voucher-premium-support-competition

Furthermore, you keep blabbing about “policy choices” without mentioning one. It.Is.Not.A.Fact tht “To provide the same services as traditional Medicare, MA does it much cheaper (to enrollees) if you factor in government subsidies that the GOP wants to disappear when they lose the Medicare “entitlement.” You people!

CL September 24, 2013 at 8:43 am

I’ve read that post before, and he does not dispute the point I made. He tries to explain why the savings are not meaningful by harping on the benchmark and claiming that the efficiency of Medicare partly explains why MA is able to do it cheaper (LOL). But again, the fact that the government pays more is a policy choice. Pocket the savings and keep costs flat to the consumers rather than making it cheaper to the seniors. And implement the competitive elements system wide rather than in such a limited manner, where of course you can nitpick about how meaningful the savings are.

Are you really arguing that government can administer this program (or any program, really) more efficiently than the private sector? Then explain the debacle that is Obamacare. I say with full confidence that the status quo was better than Obamacare, as we are already seeing with skyrocketing premiums and employers reducing hours to avoid compliance. Obama is already having to violate his own law because it is such a train wreck

Who said moochers and takers are to blame for health care costs? Structural problems created by government are responsible for skyrocketing healthcare costs. Our very system of employer provided health care, which removes price pressure from the “market,” is a remnant of WWII wage controls. What boggles my mind is the arrogant certainty of statists that these government created problems can be solved by more government. It is sort of like those last sad Marxists who claim Communism just has not been done right and is a viable economic theory. I for one believe capitalism has pulled more people from poverty and lifted the standard of living and life expectancy more than any other factor in human history. So you can sneer at it all you want, but history is on my side.

Odd for the ones accusing those that disagree of bad faith or callousness (you and Jan) to call me condescending. Might want to knock off the ad hominems before calling someone else out for their tone.

notLindaBurke September 24, 2013 at 9:24 am

Might want to knock off the ad hominems before calling someone else out for their tone.
Might want to stop talking down to women. And FYI, you made no point for Cutler or anyone else to dispute. You made statements and expect people to just accept them. For example, you have not delineated exactly how private company MA plans are more efficient than traditional plans. Etc. etc. etc. In the end, reducing subsidies to MA is a good “policy choice” and should be supported by those who claim to be fiscally conservative unless what they really want is to end health care entitlements. Siphoning of ANY money for private company profits or big salaries or lobbyists is a waste of scarce health care dollars. IMHO.

CL September 24, 2013 at 11:12 am

LOL. Now you are going to play the victim when I called you out. The war on women comes to FITSNEWS. FYI, I only wage war on illogical arguments.

For the last time, Cutter (nor anyone else with a connection to reality) does not deny that there are savings, they dispute whether they are meaningful. Or if you don’t like MA as an example, how about Medicare Part D? Its costs have been running behind projections for years because of the elements of competition built into the program.

Are you saying the government could manage health insurance more efficiently than the private sector?* If so, care to comment on the Obamacare train wreck (to use the characterization of one of its Democratic drafters)?

* I should say there is one way the government can outdo the private sector – by ruthlessly rationing care. But if death panels are your response to the efficiency of a free market, I would say you have already lost the argument.

notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm

It is not spin. It is fact that, as I said (and reiterated in the post that was taken down by ???) “Advantage plans cost the government more than traditional Medicare”

The very WaPo article you cited contains a graphic that demonstrates how Medicare Advantage plans have cost the government more since their inception during the spendthrift Bush43 administration. The plans may be cheaper for MA enrollees, but that’s because the government subsidizes MA plans more generously than it does traditional Medicare, which is precisely why the ACA decreases those subsidies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/22/does-medicare-advantage-cost-less-or-does-it-cost-more/

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:23 am

You say you never heard of a Republican plan, and then you recite what the Republicans have said for years. I’m afraid the pig is yours.

Jan September 22, 2013 at 5:41 pm

Can you not read? I did not say the Republicans had offered no plan. I said they had only offered one plan. “If you don’t have insurance be prepared to die, and screw old sick people.”

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm

Either way, you’re wrong. Speaking of reading, have you actually read the Constitution? There is nothing in it about free stuff. That’s not what “the general welfare” means. If you challenge me on this, you will only be showing ignorance. I don’t think you are stupid, but the jury is still out on how much you actually know that is true.

Walter-White September 21, 2013 at 8:10 am

Remember that anti American political ad put out by republicans which showed Chinese students having a good laugh because they held some of our debt. Social Security holds three times the debt of the Chinese so if you would like to encourage your republican electorate to pay back SS instead of trying to kill it then please do.

Reply
Guest Poster September 20, 2013 at 7:29 pm

They’ve actually offered an alternative plan for three years in a row. Guess you missed it, Jan. May not be what you like, but you certainly can’t say they didn’t have another plan. Even includes federal funding for high risk pools: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358874/republican-replacement-andrew-stiles

Reply
Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:14 am

That is demonstrably untrue. Several Republicans have published their bills and many have passed. But they are ALWAYS DOA in the DEMOCRAT Senate. It’s been that way since Jan, 2010. Now, it would appear to a reasonable person that it is the Senate Democrats who are lollygagging AND el Presidente, not the Republicans.

Reply
BEN September 20, 2013 at 3:40 pm

They’ve forgotten that part of the plan, “replace”!

Reply
nitrat September 20, 2013 at 6:45 pm

They couldn’t ‘replace’.
Obamacare is their plan.

Reply
Vanguard16 September 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Story line should be, House votes to shutdown the Government. Let’s see how that works out for ya!!

Reply
The Colonel September 21, 2013 at 2:51 am

Shutting down the federal Government for a month or two might be the best thing that’s ever happened to this country because most of us would quickly figure out that we can get along fine without all the “guvamint hep”

Reply
Walter-White September 21, 2013 at 8:06 am

Actually not. Sober up.

Reply
The Colonel September 21, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Sadly, 6 or so more months…

Reply
afmajret September 21, 2013 at 10:36 pm

I’m sure you’re a real credit to your service, sir.

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:30 am

SS Checks would still go out, but welfare checks would not. Current bills would be paid, but no new purchasing would be allowed. Medicare would be paid, but not Medicaid. In other words, things for which there have been actual taxes collected will be paid, while “free” stuff stops….. Be still my bleeding heart!

Reply
Sgt. Bilko September 21, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Im for it,Will sure be glad to see pension benefits for Colonels cut out,

Reply
The Colonel September 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm

Wouldn’t matter to me, I’m a Reservist and not counting on the pension for my retirement anyway. Shoot, it might even mean I get to come home early.

Reply
Bring Back Big T September 21, 2013 at 6:16 pm

Reservist?A weekend warrior eh.No wonder you have all this time on your hands to blow hot air,

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:35 am

And what are you doing? And please don’t say, “telling the truth.” I wouldn’t want the system to get clogged up from all the vomiting.

The Colonel September 22, 2013 at 7:20 am

Yeah, I get a weekend or two off once in a while – but since June, I’ve been in the desert on Active duty.

SparkleCity September 22, 2013 at 1:50 am

That’s bullshit and you know it

You might not be counting on it but my money says you’ll not reject that retirement check.

I’m a retired E-7 Guardsman myself

I started drawing my retirement in May and I am still employed in my civilian career.

Ain’t no fucking O-6 in the US Military who retired shoots the eagle when it is about to shit.

Again,calling total bullshit on your premise because I know better.

Looks like you’ve got some idle time and good access to the web.

I didn’t have that luxury during my deployments in ‘02.03-04 & 05. We were lucky to get 30 minutes per week or if we could scarf a little extra time here and there. I sure as hell didn’t waste my scarce 30 minutes commenting on some blog.

Not to mention butkus during Gulf I. Actually, we were probably better off without having that shit back in 1991…..

All that being said, I wish you well and a safe completion of the mission. I’d go back tomorrow……….

Been there,done that,got the T-shirts & multiple DD-214’s to prove it!!!

The Colonel September 22, 2013 at 7:19 am

Still serving boys, one of the great pieces of advice my Air Force Reserves dad gave was don’t count on retirement from anyone or any where. The business principle is diversity. Would I be pissed if after I retire, my retirement was cut off – Yes but it would not be the end of me.
As for time to “blow hot air”, if you’ll look at the odd times I post you’ll discover that you were asleep when I was posting, why – because I’m in the desert, 8 time zones away. Not my first trip (but most assuredly, my last). I’m an old broken colonel, I don’t kick doors anymore (once upon a time I did, but no more) I have multiple computers on my desk and between attempts to kill the “good idea fairy”, I have time to post a thought or two.
Sparkle, you’re showing your age – we didn’t have real access the internet (except maybe CompuServe) during the first Gulf War. We barely even had that the first time I went out the door to Panama. My second time over here in ’03, you had to go to the computer room, tent or trailer or whatever. In ’09 I was senior enough to have an office with computers at my beck and call and most soldiers had their own lap tops. Now, every soldier has a tablet or a laptop and most have pretty good WiFi unless they are out on one of the more primitive FOBs. The pax terminals at airfields run by the Air Farce are all WiFi’d. The USO in BAgram, named for Pat Tillman has the best WiFi in all of Afghanistan.

SparkleCity September 22, 2013 at 10:09 pm

That is exactly what I was saying.

Obviously the curse of O-6’s is upon you because that is exactly what I was posting. During my deployments, I used my 30 minutes or so doing a few emails and then would read the Spartanburg H/J or other newspapers on line. I didn’t have the luxury of blogging but again, things are different now but I do think it detracts from the mission. I’ve sat next to an airman who went total apeshit when his wife bitched to him over a broken dishwasher in real time. That’s just plain bullshit.

I was a traditional Air Guardsman myself except for 72-74 when I was in the 82nd Airborne. Did my time, vowed NEVER to wear green baggy shit anymore in my life and got back to being a student/hippie. Flash forward to 1988 with a couple of 401K’s staring me in the face and joined the Air Guard mainly for the padding of my civilian retirement plans. Was lucky to get a flying slot in 1991 due to Gulf I,went over, Bosnia was next and then the rest is history. Retired from the Air Guard in 2010 and started drawing a check a few months ago but still work full time. Been a gainfully employed civilian since 1974.

Anyhoo, I know things are busy over there getting all the shit out of country. I was at Baghram back in ’02 when it was like the wild west and some other places that are still classified where most rear-echelon rules did not apply. Other times we flew out of Al-Udide, Quatar or Ali-al-Salem Kuwait. There is not a day that goes by that I think of what is going on over there. I get the sanitized version of “Early Bird”. Sure wish I could get the real thing like back in the day though

Be safe, give all the troops my very best and try not to be so fucking uppity.

But hey, some are just wired that way

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:36 am

His pension wouldn’t be cut. (ask your congressman) The army wouldn’t be able to purchase anything new and your welfare might get cut, though.

Reply
The Colonel September 22, 2013 at 7:19 am

Well at least two of us understand how the system works…

Bring Back Big T! September 22, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Sure do.

Two Republicans slopping at the public trough and wanting to cut federal spending,

Two real “system workers here.

The Colonel September 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm

Hey Big T junior,
My “trough slopping” will be over in six months or so, I’d be happy to trade gigs with you in the mean time though. Once again, my personal business is on hold and my normal career is on hold while I play soldier.
You’re welcome,

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:51 pm

I wonder if you understand that real life calls for ideas that work. What you want doesn’t work. What the Col. & I want does. No one wants to leave truly needy people without help, but to try and help all kinds of problems with a one-size-fits-all answer is the wrong way to go about it. Dr. Ben Carson has articulated a very good, multi-level answer which is backed by Tim Scott, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and many others.

Slopping at the public trough? I tell you what – just give me back the half million in SS that I’ve put into it and the half billion in taxes that I’ve paid and we’ll call it even. I can’t speak for the Colonel, but my guess is that he has risked far more in life and limb than I ever have paid in taxes.

I’m not going to call you a name, as you seem are want to do to others, but know this; With every untoward curse you give, by name or jest, will come back to you ten-fold.

Jan September 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm

“No one wants to leave truly needy people without help, but to try and help all kinds of problems with a one-size-fits-all answer is the wrong way to go about it.”
Really, and what is the right way to go about it? Who should decide who is needy? Who should decide what we do about it?
As for giving back the money you paid in taxes. How about trading that for the money you and your businesses earned driving and transporting goods over public roads, flying in and out of public airports; talking on the phone over satellites placed in orbit by the government, sales made over the internet which was developed by the government, etc. etc. I guess you could exempt the money you earned from the back of your horse so long as you avoided the public right of ways.

Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 7:43 pm

You have formed the answer to your own question – only in a free society can we discover that no-one makes our decisions for us. No. One.

As to the public roads, those who buy gas pay for those. For 35 years, other states have gotten from half to two-thirds of our gas tax money. If we just got the taxes we pay for our gas, we could have all the infrastructure we need. I wouldn’t even mind toll roads. I get charged a buttload which pays for the satellites. The government DIDN’T pay for it. Now WE paid for the government satellites to spy on us. We pay for the internet and our TAXES pay for the Colleges which abuse it.

You really don’t know where money comes from, do you? That’s very surprising. Your grammar use makes you SOUND intelligent.

RHood2 September 20, 2013 at 3:21 pm

The House voted to defund the ACA. It did not defund ACA.
Simple fact is the House can’t do anything on the budget unilaterally other than originate budget bills.
For them to think of this as a victory, and for a website or news organization to even hint that it is fait accompli, is a clusterjerk of epic proportions.

The Senate would have to agree. It doesn’t.
The President would have to sign. He won’t.

Reply
Justwondering September 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Is a clusterjerk the same thing as a circlejerk?

Reply
Torch September 21, 2013 at 8:08 am

The only difference is that the US population is the cookie.

Reply
Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 1:08 am

Sometimes, the symbolism is as important as the victory. The Senate is on notice, and next year, their loyalty to a repulsive idea will be their undoing.

Reply
notLindaBurke September 23, 2013 at 10:29 am

Oh, is that the plan? Do you honestly think that the average American cares about symbolism? That’s a GOP fantasy. I’d bet that most Americans are sick and tired of “symbolism” like this nonsense and “political theater” like Issa’s hearings. The facts that all this folderol has a cost is not lost on people who know real “wasteful spending” when they see it.

Reply
Slartibartfast September 23, 2013 at 11:39 pm

That’s exactly what the elite in the Democrat party thought in 1968. They paid for it in votes. The Republican base has been deserted by the cocktail elite. The average American wants to see SOMETHING from the gutless and stupid GOP leadership. Symbols are very important.

Reply
notLindaBurke September 24, 2013 at 5:04 am

More GOP fantasy. The 1968 election has nothing to do with anything going on now. I voted in that election, and I remember the realities of that time. Anything “symbolic” was happening in the streets. Your blather about elites is the kind of stuff that people kick around, but in the end is meaningless in the real world of today’s politics where everyone is connected to everyone else and everyone has a say.

Slartibartfast September 24, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Time will prove you wrong.

lexguy September 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm

I say shut the dang government down. The less the better!

Reply
CNSYD September 21, 2013 at 8:57 am

That’s right. Hell with those soldiers in Afghanistan. They can walk home. We don’t need the FDA interfering with the free market system. Let drug company put out whatever new drugs they want to. Those FAA air traffic controllers are unnecessary. Just let the air lines play chicken with each other. All those bridges that need to be replaced. Let them fall. Native Americans got around without them.

Reply
Bill September 20, 2013 at 3:49 pm

The screams you are hearing now are from K Street. The money is flowing from the lobbyist to the Republicans so fast it makes a screeching sound as it all tries to squeak through the doors of the Capitol Building.
But if you want real reform, here is an easy solution. Repeal Obamacare and give every American the same health insurance as Congressmen receive at the same price Congressmen pay.

Reply
Cicero September 20, 2013 at 3:59 pm

This is a political masterstroke from Boehner Nutless thugs like “Senator” Cruz have been bullying them into this, and Boehner has resisted because he knew it wouldn’t work. Now he’s kicked it over to the Senate to call his bluff. Cruz’s talk will fall flat, and Boehner can say to the Tea Party crowd, “Welp, we did our part. Cruz failed. Gotta pass a clean CR without the Barrycare parts.” Boehner keeps the government running and Cruz is marginalized on the right.

Fucking brilliant.

Reply
Smirks September 21, 2013 at 6:50 am

Yup, they know it won’t be defunded, so they are trying to pin the blame on each other as early as possible. Exactly why Cruz said it is up to the House and Boehner said the Senate must act.

Spoiler: Boehner is already unpopular, so he is going to get the blame. I’m sure he’ll find a cushy job lobbying if he doesn’t keep his seat next year.

Reply
Ass Blow September 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Please shut down the federal government has left the F*&^KING building anyway!!!

Reply
Stephan September 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Mission complete. I am sure the President will sign it after the senate votes yes. Great job guys. I was afraid I was going to have to get insurance. Now I can mooch with Medicaid. Will Lexington med center take me?

Reply
Don't reform, remove September 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Shut it all down. The longer the better.

Reply
CNSYD September 21, 2013 at 9:00 am

All the wounded and disabled soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan agree with you I’m sure. They don’t want to be cared for.

Reply
Don't reform, remove September 21, 2013 at 9:59 am

We both know that’s never going to happen.

Even if the miracle of all miracles were to somehow occur I have no doubt that charities and family members would take care of their them.

The notion that any government shutdown would be anything significant in size or scope is ridiculous to start.

The Republicans don’t want to do that as much as the Democrats.

The only difference right now is that the Republicans are in fear of losing their positions of power so they have to pretend otherwise until their story line is crafted properly and the drama of a shutdown scares their constituents into line.

I agree with Colonel, if a government shutdown took place for any significant period of time the people would soon realize that they can get along without them-so it’s NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

Reply
ThreePalms September 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

Did you just advocate that the care of wounded and disabled soldiers should be left to charities and their families? You, sir, are so clueless you do not even realize that you are worthless trash who does not even deserve to be in the United States of America. I’ll bet you think you are patriotic. Do you have no shame?

Reply
Don't reform, remove September 21, 2013 at 2:52 pm

I think it’s shameful they were sent to a war(pick any war in the last 50 years) that in the end meant nothing.

That being said, they made their choice. I think the shame lies with our government and those that support its constant wars and constant depredations on its citizens.

You are the one that should feel shame. It is cheerleaders like you that helped make the soldiers wounded and disabled.

Manray September 20, 2013 at 6:47 pm

It’s easier than governing.

Reply
MashPotato September 20, 2013 at 7:05 pm

Pacifier fell out of the baby’s mouth again. RINOs can’t handle their pissed off base, so they shove it back in every time. Is anyone else sick of being coddled?

Reply
Walter-White September 21, 2013 at 8:05 am

So it turns out that the death panel is the GOP congress.

Reply
Torch September 21, 2013 at 8:49 am

A waste of time, energy and money. Elect someone other than Addison “Joe” Wilson. We don’t have recall in SC do we?

Reply
bogart September 21, 2013 at 9:46 am

The House voting once AGAIN to defund ObamaCare is about as exciting as Mily Cyrus sticking her coated tongue out over and over AGAIN.

Reply
JJ September 21, 2013 at 3:42 pm

“In a rare display of intestinal fortitude…”

Have you even been paying attention?

Also, nice misleading headline.

Reply
SparkleCity September 21, 2013 at 11:23 pm

Who gives a BIG BLUE RAT’S ASS!!!

A Pox on both the United States Congress and Senate as well as the Executive Branch

Fuck each branch and the TEA Party to boot!!!

Not a fucking one of the bunch listed above has a clue about what is going on in the country.

Get rid of the whole bunch is what I say….

Every one of them could not solve one fucking problem.

I never thought I would say this but voting for anyone of these cretins is pointless and yields absolutely negative results.

I very well might not vote for a national/congressional election ever again.

I never thought I would think like this but these dickheads have proven that your vote and/or your opinion means nothing.

Right-wing fascism is just around the corner and after that will be the collapse of the United States of America and the have-nots of the southern hemisphere will triumph

Due to the head-strong right-wing-nuts…which will serve them rightI!!

Go ahead and fuck up everything………….

I’m going to stand on the sidelines and laugh while the whole country goes to shit under the TEA Party’s unrealistic vision of how things should be!!!

Reply
Slartibartfast September 22, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Actually, fascism is already here and it’s a left-wing ideal. But what would YOUR answer be? A one-size-fits-all solution which won’t work and will increase governmental power? A dictatorship of the proletariat? A monarchy with you as monarch? Don’t blame the TEA party. This screwup belongs to the two major parties.

Reply
SparkleCity September 22, 2013 at 10:56 pm

Actually, I think I’d be a pretty good monarch

I’s start off with total overhaul of the IRS and have a combined national sales tax and flat tax

Then I’d have a real no shit energy policy making conversation an integral part of national defense and making sure everyone knew it is a civic duty to conserve energy. I’d eliminate the subsidies to energy companies and the nuclear power lobby. If they can’t make it on their own fucking dime tough shit. I would not interfere with companies providing whatever type of energy they can produce but just don’t do it on the governments dime. Once per year, I’d shut off all petroleum for private transportation so dipshits will know how it felt like back in 1973-1974 when the whole mess started and none of the dipshit leaders of both major parties have done a damn thing to solve this since 1973 except for the strategic oil reserves started under the Carter Administration. It looks like we might be off the hook for a few years but you never know…….

I’d bring back the draft for both men and women

I’d legalize all recreational drugs and tax them. I’d make hard-line drugs available but with one condition, after 5 years of being a government sanctioned junkie you receive a massive overdose and die. Those 5 years will be spent sorting trash and stomping cans if you are sober enough to perform the tasks with perks like a nice room and better food. It’s all abut freedom ain’t it???

I would allow a Parliment but all members would be housed in barracks at Ft. Belvoir during session. With shuttle buses or the subway being the only way to & fro.

I would not allow more than $500 per ENTITY for political contributions to a political party or individual politician.

I would outlaw lobbies. Any lobbyist caught caught in the act would be executed on the spot.

I would allow free and unfettered elections (for anyone BUT myself) and change the general election to Saturday so more people would have the opportunity to vote not like the right-wing nutted dickheads who are doing their best to limit the voting process at present (you know – limiting early voting, changing precincts/districts for their advantage).

I would allow pay per view executions with the proceeds going to victims and general upkeep of the prisons. For a cool million extra you can personally push the button or pull the leaver.

I would merge South Carolina into North Carolina and name the new state “Carolina” with the capital in Charlotte and make Columbia the new ultra landfill for the entire southeast.

I would designate Sept 11th as Terrorism Memorial Day and make it a national day of remembrance and reflection second only to July 4th.

I would construct a Doomsday device just like in Dr. Strangelove…If somebody serioulsy fucks up, the entire world perishes

I would support the right to arm bears 100%

TEA party???

Give me a fucking break they ARE the Republican party now. Just who do you think is fucking that dog???

Reply
Slartibartfast September 23, 2013 at 12:25 am

Interestingly put forth. I actually like most of it. But, you know some person who’s never read a stitch of Crichton is going to tell us how government can do it all. I used to think a 1954 two-toned chevy was the answer to all my problems. But then, the 1966 Ford Galaxy 500 was the actual car that saved my life.

Reply
Frank Pytel September 23, 2013 at 2:05 am

Hitler? Damn, how ya been? Long time dude.

Reply
nitrat September 22, 2013 at 11:50 am

I’m sure someone else has said it.

But, no, the US House did not defund Obamacare because the US House can’t accomplish anything ON ITS OWN to make or repeal laws.
It voted to defund Obamacare, like it’s voted 30 or 40 times to repeal Obamacare…to no effect.

Most people think that ‘representatives’ who make endless, meaningless political gestures are just arrogantly pathetic…or, pathetically arrogant. They are not taken seriously by anyone outside of their echo chamber.

Reply
Frank Pytel September 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm

That is true. It’s unfortunate that a majority of the house of reps and 2/3 of the PUBLIC are unable to convince Oshitforbrains that he is doing the wrong thing. Anywhere else in the world, that would be called a dictatorship.

Here in the USSA he calls it ‘leadership’?!? WTF

Reply
Robert September 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Even your hero Rand Paul says they can’t defeat Obamacare. Time to move on.

Reply
anon. September 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Great, now let’s get to the real work…

Article III section 3 defines TREASON, thus: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The POTUS , by his own admission states we are in “A WAR ON TERROR.” Al-Qaeda is
the face of this enemy, and they have killed 2996 US Citizens on 9/11 and just this weekend killed 68 innocent people in a Mall in Kenya. We have found out this week that Al-Qaeda has a Chemical Weapons R &D facility in Somalia.

The POTUS violated the Arms Export Control Act by sending weapons to Al-Qaeda who have joined the Sryian resistence. Who do you suppose that the weapons will be pointed at once Assad is gone?
The POTUS is a man that has VIOLATED the Constitution and Congress must Impeach and Convict him…Write your Congressmen!

Reply

Leave a Comment