Worst Bill Ever - WSJ

[Pami]

Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill - WSJ.com

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

More at the source.

 

[jedi]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare.

Nice but understandable. In every war there are going to be causalities and generals make calculated risk knowing that note every soldier is going to come home.

Spin this in a different light.
Say it was YOU in her shoes and you are ramming the "GUN CRIME BILL" which in essence removes ALL federal gun laws and regulates, dismantles the ATF, new full auto can be owned by the population, no license/permit needed to OC/CC, you can walk in with a gun ANYWHERE (federal, state, public, etc..) and lets throw in that every able US citizen must have a handgun and rifle or else pay a $100 fee at tax time.

YOU know you may be able to pass this new law but will end up lossing the majority of your seats in both houses and the presidency as well. Do you?

If it passes it's 99% for sure that it can not be undone and if it is tried it will take generations to do. *cough* social security *cough*

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Nice but understandable. In every war there are going to be causalities and generals make calculated risk knowing that note every soldier is going to come home.

Spin this in a different light.
Say it was YOU in her shoes and you are ramming the "GUN CRIME BILL" which in essence removes ALL federal gun laws and regulates, dismantles the ATF, new full auto can be owned by the population, no license/permit needed to OC/CC, you can walk in with a gun ANYWHERE (federal, state, public, etc..) and lets throw in that every able US citizen must have a handgun and rifle or else pay a $100 fee at tax time.

YOU know you may be able to pass this new law but will end up lossing the majority of your seats in both houses and the presidency as well. Do you?

If it passes it's 99% for sure that it can not be undone and if it is tried it will take generations to do. *cough* social security *cough*

Absolutely.... words cannot describe how pleased I'd be if this were true.

But yes, politicians are never the idealists we want them to be - they are almost inevitably infuriating pragmatists - willing to cede now to gain later.
Definitely a shrewd, calculating move, but I doubt Pelosi realizes how many seats my former party is going to lose - it might be a few or a lot, depending on how conglomerated the entrenched opposition is.

 

[jedi]

Does not matter if they lose ALL their seats (they won't) but if this bill passes it will f-o-r-e-v-e-r be with us and may be looked back by the scholars as what finally bankrupted the USA.

 

[SavageEagle]

If this passes, they'll have more to worry about than just losing seats in the government.

 

[jedi]

No they won't SE. The people are not going to revolt if it passes.
As long as there is food in the stores or at BK, McDonalds, KFC and their is entertainment on TV the sheep will stay put. We could even cut Social Security and the people still won't revolt. Since Social Security for the most part will only affect the old. Mess with the food supply and then we have problems. But keep the masses feed and they will go along with whatever you do.

 

[SavageEagle]

No they won't SE. The people are not going to revolt if it passes.
As long as there is food in the stores or at BK, McDonalds, KFC and their is entertainment on TV the sheep will stay put. We could even cut Social Security and the people still won't revolt. Since Social Security for the most part will only affect the old. Mess with the food supply and then we have problems. But keep the masses feed and they will go along with whatever you do.

Well I'm not buying into it. Millions of other won't buy into it. And when they force us and we take it to court and the court rules in favor of THEM over US, I SERIOUSLY beg to differ.

 

[Lex Concord]

Nice but understandable. In every war there are going to be causalities and generals make calculated risk knowing that note every soldier is going to come home.

Spin this in a different light.
Say it was YOU in her shoes and you are ramming the "GUN CRIME BILL" which in essence removes ALL federal gun laws and regulates, dismantles the ATF, new full auto can be owned by the population, no license/permit needed to OC/CC, you can walk in with a gun ANYWHERE (federal, state, public, etc..) and lets throw in that every able US citizen must have a handgun and rifle or else pay a $100 fee at tax time.

YOU know you may be able to pass this new law but will end up lossing the majority of your seats in both houses and the presidency as well. Do you?

If it passes it's 99% for sure that it can not be undone and if it is tried it will take generations to do. *cough* social security *cough*

I get the point of your hypothetical bill, but, even as a staunch defender of the 2A, I would be against the example you posit, just as I am against health care reform (unless that reform would be a simple full and complete return to a free market - though with insurance being regulated by the states, the feds have no legitimate purview here at all).

It is no more moral or Constitutional to force someone to own or carry a gun than it is to deny them that same right.

Also, the constitutionality of a federal law to force cities and states to allow carry/ownership is debatable at best, depending upon whether you subscribe to "original intent", or to the Fourteenth Amendment giving federal law primacy over state laws.

I often say that R & D and, for the most part, even "conservative" and "liberal" are two sides to the same coin. Laws similar to your example have been proposed in congress in the past, and serve to prove my point.

Most on both sides of the coin are only upset about unconstitutional usurpations of power when it happens to be out of line with their "partisan" (read: faction-based, as in the inappropriately named "Federalist Papers") perception of what is right.

Now, if it simply stuck with repealing existing federal gun laws and eliminating the BATFE, we would have a bill that I, and probably even Ron Paul, could support

 

[ihateiraq]

Well I'm not buying into it. Millions of other won't buy into it. And when they force us and we take it to court and the court rules in favor of THEM over US, I SERIOUSLY beg to differ.

when the internet bloggers/tough guys/heroes stumble into sunlight with their $10000 ar15 w/ every attachment known to man and realize it took all their strength to hoist themselves out of their computer chair and their rifle is now too heavy to carry, things will go right back to normal.

 

[Spot Me 2]

If this passes, they'll have more to worry about than just losing seats in the government.

Your far from alone on this one!!!!!!

 

[SavageEagle]

when the internet bloggers/tough guys/heroes stumble into sunlight with their $10000 ar15 w/ every attachment known to man and realize it took all their strength to hoist themselves out of their computer chair and their rifle is now too heavy to carry, things will go right back to normal.

It won't be that they can't lift it from lack of strength. It'll be because they forgot how!