Uh Oh! The only bid cosidered?? Michelle Obama's classmate?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

It's good for Obama to send out money to another country, when he's burning through our cash
 
lol. American politics is built on cronyism and favors... and NOW you're concerned that Michelle Obama's friend built the Obamacare website?

Oh, no, where is the outrage?! What an unprecedented act of corruption!
 
lol. American politics is built on cronyism and favors... and NOW you're concerned that Michelle Obama's friend built the Obamacare website?

Oh, no, where is the outrage?! What an unprecedented act of corruption!

No, but you would think something that Obama is trying to make a staple of our country would at least be made in the USA?
 
It doesn't bother me, per se, she has an old classmate at that company. It's the no bid aspect I don't like.
 
It doesn't bother me, per se, she has an old classmate at that company. It's the no bid aspect I don't like.

I'm pretty sure the republicans set the gold standard for no bid contracts in 2003, and this doesn't even move the needle. A website? Oh noes.
 
Why would you think that?
Why wouldn't you? I don't feed my dogs stuff that isn't made here and holy hell...just read about dead dogs possibly from Chinese dog snacks. Did the website cost 687 million dollars? What the fuck? I could pick a ninth grade illegal from a Vegas school and have this website up and running in Spanish and English in a week for 50 bucks.
 
Why wouldn't you? I don't feed my dogs stuff that isn't made here and holy hell...just read about dead dogs possibly from Chinese dog snacks. Did the website cost 687 million dollars? What the fuck? I could pick a ninth grade illegal from a Vegas school and have this website up and running in Spanish and English in a week for 50 bucks.

Okay.
 
The question you should be asking yourself, MarAzul, is how the Executive Branch (whether the President, or HHS, or whoever) can declare that the populace can postpone following a law that's been passed by the Legislative Branch and confirmed by the Judicial Branch, for whatever reason. As I'm reading it, if the site isn't working well on Feb. 15 (the last date for you to get insurance that covers March, and therefore gives you 10 months that year of coverage and reduces the penalty), no one in the Executive Branch has the constitutional authority to say "we're going to ignore the penalty section of that law (1% of your salary or $295/family, whichever is greater) because the website's messed up." They can send an amended bill back to Congress, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no PPACA amendment is going to make it through the House this time.
Now, we'll see what happens IF that happens. Amazon took almost a decade to perfect being able to order a TV on a "millions of customers" scale. Can the gov't do it better? ;)
 
Last edited:
Here's something interesting from MarketWatch:

(note: The White House already debunked that the mandate date would be moved...I'm bringing up the Executive-Branch-Writing-the-Rules issue)
NBC News reports the Obama administration will delay the Obamacare individual mandate by as long as six weeks following the glitch-ridden rollout of the health care law’s website, healthcare.gov.
...“NBC is wrong again,” tweeted Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “Individual mandate timing hasnt changed. Deadline for having insurance is March 31. Was true this am. Is true tonight.”


There is another sign that the penalty policy may be in flux: While HHS referred MarketWatch’s previous inquiries about the fine, and the deadline to avoid it, to the Treasury, a spokesperson there referred a request Wednesday back to HHS, suggesting that the health officials are now the ones writing new rules for the law.
 
I'm pretty sure the republicans set the gold standard for no bid contracts in 2003, and this doesn't even move the needle. A website? Oh noes.

Makes n o difference if it's lefties or righties, unless there's really good justification I am not a fan of awarding large contracts in the absence of open bidding.
 
The question you should be asking yourself, MarAzul, is how the Executive Branch (whether the President, or HHS, or whoever) can declare that the populace can postpone following a law that's been passed by the Legislative Branch and confirmed by the Judicial Branch, for whatever reason. As I'm reading it, if the site isn't working well on Feb. 15 (the last date for you to get insurance that covers March, and therefore gives you 10 months that year of coverage and reduces the penalty), no one in the Executive Branch has the constitutional authority to say "we're going to ignore the penalty section of that law (1% of your salary or $295/family, whichever is greater) because the website's messed up." They can send an amended bill back to Congress, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no PPACA amendment is going to make it through the House this time.
Now, we'll see what happens IF that happens. Amazon took almost a decade to perfect being able to order a TV on a "millions of customers" scale. Can the gov't do it better? ;)

Actually this law was not confirmed as you say by the Judicial Branch. I believe the Chief Justice said the individual mandate was a Tax as it has to be a tax to be legal as the the Congress does indeed have the power to lay taxes. That ruling does seem correct and supported by the first paragraph in Section 8 as follows;

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

However what was left unsaid and therefore leaving the ruling short of complete confirmation of the law is that the Tax is a direct tax and therefore prohibited by the Constitution in Section 9 as follows;

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The Sixteenth amendment was passed to permit direct taxes on income but nothing else so the individual mandate tax would still be prohibited by "No direct Tax shall be laid"

The first person that has this tax laid on them or any other that do would have standing to challenge the legality in court. Congress needs to correct this error, I believe the Chief
Justice said this rather clearly if not directly.
 
That's not what I was arguing. I asked Mags why he would think that Obama would give the contract to Americans. I haven't given an opinion on that yet.
If your opinion differs I wouldn't want to give it either.
 
Huh? You asked the fucking question. Your opinion will be whatever you think the people on your side want you to think.

Calm your tits, broseph. You apparently already know my answer to your question, but my question was different. Look:

No, but you would think something that Obama is trying to make a staple of our country would at least be made in the USA?

To which I replied:

Why would you think that?

To which you thought I meant:

Why would you think Americans shouldn't get the contract?

So, if you took the time to read the thread, you would see that I'm not suggesting that Americans shouldn't get the contract. I was questioning why Mags thought that Obama should necessarily give the contract to Americans.

What do you think?
 
So, if I have this right, Haliburton's no-bid contracts under Bush/Cheney were a bad thing, but the website fiasco under Obama/Biden is 'who cares, Bush was worse.'


Go Blazers
 
So, if I have this right, Haliburton's no-bid contracts under Bush/Cheney were a bad thing, but the website fiasco under Obama/Biden is 'who cares, Bush was worse.'


Go Blazers

Seems that way…. And was Bush really worse? I mean Obama has hit us with debt greater than all the presidents combined. I guess he is better. Better at destroying our country's economics
 
So, if I have this right, Haliburton's no-bid contracts under Bush/Cheney were a bad thing, but the website fiasco under Obama/Biden is 'who cares, Bush was worse.'


Go Blazers

If you can't see the difference, there isn't much hope of me explaining it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top