PDA

View Full Version : CAN YOU SMEL-L-L-L ... WHAT BARACK ... IS COOKING!



LWW
05-17-2011, 07:55 AM
http://api.ning.com/files/Ze9LoO5c5zSusB4X11wt--l30f8Bb7FkxBm8FvSZsmqxGLoWJPjro01y6uG2898GqKfEFGtd q8hPS9BFxgAV3Na97789yzrm/canusmell.jpg
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>"KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!"</span>
-DEAR LEADER TO FLYOVER BUBBAS-</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plea that Congress would have to pass the 906-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to "find out what's in it" has become an instant classic in the annals of dysfunctional government. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But in the months since the bill's passage, as the Department of Health and Human Services has parceled out waivers, something else has become clear: We may never know what's in it.
It's not because the legislation is so long or so complicated though it is staggeringly prolix and stupefying in complexity. If it were only that, time would reveal the intricacies and experts would parse the meaning.</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>No, the reason we may never really know what's in it is because it lodges such tremendous discretion and power in the Department of Health and Human Services that we can never really be sure how government decision-makers will interpret it. In at least 700 separate instances, the legislation says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services "shall have discretion" to make rules implementing the law's often vague requirements.</span> ...

But while the identities of those who have received waivers have been disclosed,<span style='font-size: 11pt'> the administration has so far declined to reveal the names of those whose waiver requests were denied. Nor has HHS explained its criteria.

There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers.</span> As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"</span>

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.
But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington?</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit but litigation is expensive and slow.

Additionally, companies may fear government retaliation: "It is no accident that it is often public-interest groups or patient groups that take on the FDA, for instance. It is simply too risky for a pharmaceutical company with multiple applications before the agency to challenge one action if it is vulnerable to a government-induced slowdown on another,"</span> writes Epstein.

Nor have the courts been particularly solicitous of those who challenge the regulatory state. Epstein observes with regret that "Most judges evince great faith in the administrative state, so that the abuse of discretion that lies at the heart of the waiver problem is, to them, a matter best sorted out by administrative expertise a perpetually overestimated pool of wisdom."

Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."</span>

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."</span> It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies. </div></div>

Perky
05-17-2011, 11:08 AM
The Weenie certainly said a "MOUTHFUL" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ...Definitely good eating for a Weenie /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ...and absolutely no doubt that the Whining Weenie will be continuing to have a nourishing menu of this for the next <span style='font-size: 14pt'>5</span> 1/2 years /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa134/bperkins_photo/Obamascooking.jpg

Enjoy !! Wheenie ...Enjoy !!

pooltchr
05-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Troll


Steve

Perky
05-17-2011, 12:59 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif The sub-weenie identification tooooooo close for comfort Steve??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
05-17-2011, 01:25 PM
Your cutsie little name calling is of little consequence to me, so don't flatter yourself.

Steve

LWW
05-17-2011, 03:07 PM
Punky is desperately crying for attention ... and desperately trying to protect dear leader and the regime from close inspection.

Perky
05-17-2011, 03:28 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Appears to me that it's the Weenie... that's doing all the "close" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif inspection /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

llotter
05-17-2011, 04:19 PM
Handing out exemptions to current law only adds to the long list of actions of The Pathetic Moron that are blatantly against The Rule of Law, the anchor of any society and most especially one that aspires to be freedom. This open disrespect for the law in on a scale unprecedented in American history and ought be more than adequate grounds for impeachment.

LWW
05-18-2011, 03:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Handing out exemptions to current law only adds to the long list of actions of The Pathetic Moron that are blatantly against The Rule of Law, the anchor of any society and most especially one that aspires to be freedom. This open disrespect for the law in on a scale unprecedented in American history and ought be more than adequate grounds for impeachment. </div></div>

Your error is that you believe all Americans love liberty.

We have a very large minority which would gladly trade having to deal with their own personal needs for the security of being a serf to the state.