PDA

View Full Version : Obama Dem's still at it. Senate Votes Down Proof of Citizenship


HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 03:29 PM
Won't say No to abortions...
Won't say no to illegals....

Gotta hand it to these guys, they are bent on self destruction and won't be swayed.


(The Hill)- Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60939-senators-turn-back-id-requirement-for-immigrant-healthcare

Chief Henry
09-30-2009, 04:10 PM
The talking points are not out yet by the DNC and the Huffington Post.

petegz28
09-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Like I said before, the plan will cover illegals.

Garcia Bronco
09-30-2009, 04:50 PM
It will.

banyon
09-30-2009, 05:00 PM
This is a pretty craven approach to this issue.

petegz28
09-30-2009, 05:14 PM
This is a pretty craven approach to this issue.

Like we didn't know this was going to happen. When have the Dems not catered to illegals? And it makes Obama look like a big fucking liar to boot. Or even more so I should say.

banyon
09-30-2009, 06:31 PM
Like we didn't know this was going to happen. When have the Dems not catered to illegals? And it makes Obama look like a big ****ing liar to boot. Or even more so I should say.

Have you ever seen me make excuses for the democrats (or republicans for that matter) on immigration policy?

petegz28
09-30-2009, 06:34 PM
Have you ever seen me make excuses for the democrats (or republicans for that matter) on immigration policy?

I know when I kept saying the bill would cover illegals several of you, not sure if it was you particularly, said I was wrong.

banyon
09-30-2009, 06:38 PM
I know when I kept saying the bill would cover illegals several of you, not sure if it was you particularly, said I was wrong.

Yeah, you were wrong about the legislation.

The practical enforcement of the legislation is a different argument.

IIRC you shifted the goalposts on that from the legislation authorizing illegals to be treated to "well there's no practical way to verify" and then claimed "see I was right all along!"

Mind you I wasn't taking a position, I was just correcting an error, which you sometimes confuse with stating an opinion.

petegz28
09-30-2009, 07:12 PM
Yeah, you were wrong about the legislation.

The practical enforcement of the legislation is a different argument.

IIRC you shifted the goalposts on that from the legislation authorizing illegals to be treated to "well there's no practical way to verify" and then claimed "see I was right all along!"

Mind you I wasn't taking a position, I was just correcting an error, which you sometimes confuse with stating an opinion.

Yea, I was so wrong I am right.

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 07:13 PM
Like we didn't know this was going to happen. When have the Dems not catered to illegals? And it makes Obama look like a big ****ing liar to boot. Or even more so I should say.

You can't call Obama a liar for saying that this plan won't cover illegals.

mlyonsd
09-30-2009, 07:36 PM
It's quite comical to watch the democrats keep handing republicans the gun just before they put it to their own heads.

RJ
09-30-2009, 07:43 PM
It's quite comical to watch the democrats keep handing republicans the gun just before they put it to their own heads.



That is, sadly, a pretty good analogy.

I can't imagine how such a requirement could be rejected.

banyon
09-30-2009, 07:47 PM
You can't call Obama a liar for saying that this plan won't cover illegals.

That's correct.

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 07:48 PM
That's correct.

Because otherwise you're a racist.

banyon
09-30-2009, 07:49 PM
Because otherwise you're a racist.

That's incorrect.

petegz28
09-30-2009, 07:51 PM
That's correct.

LMAO...what ...the...fuck....ever

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 07:53 PM
I have a plan to throw barrels of money out into the street, but only the truly needy are allowed to take some. I won't do anything to make sure that those who pick it up are truly needy. If you say that my plan gives money to those who aren't truly needy, you are wrong.

mlyonsd
09-30-2009, 07:54 PM
That's correct.

Sure you can. Well, if he were to sign this particular bill you could.

banyon
09-30-2009, 07:56 PM
Sure you can. Well, if he were to sign this particular bill you could.

How?

banyon
09-30-2009, 07:57 PM
I have a plan to throw barrels of money out into the street, but only the truly needy are allowed to take some. I won't do anything to make sure that those who pick it up are truly needy. If you say that my plan gives money to those who aren't truly needy, you are wrong.

No, but if someone accuses you of giving money to the wealthy and then calls you a liar about it, then they're wrong.

mlyonsd
09-30-2009, 08:05 PM
How?

If Obama is faced with this particular bill and he doesn't send it back to congress to reinstate the voted down ammendment. Knowing it could happen but not pre-empting it from happening makes it a lie.

I'd have no problem with anyone calling him a liar in this scenario.

This is all non-emergency stuff we're talking about here btw.

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 08:08 PM
No, but if someone accuses you of giving money to the wealthy and then calls you a liar about it, then they're wrong.

How are they wrong? If I throw a pile of money into the street, say it's intended for only the truly needy, and then do nothing when the rich, poor, and in between shovel it into their pockets, how would I not be a liar if I said that rich people would not get any of the money?

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:12 PM
How are they wrong? If I throw a pile of money into the street, say it's intended for only the truly needy, and then do nothing when the rich, poor, and in between shovel it into their pockets, how would I not be a liar if I said that rich people would not get any of the money?

Because that wasn't the intent or authorization of your plan, particularly when there would be an explicit provision in your plan that stated "the wealthy are not allowed to take this money and allowing them to is punishable by jail or fines".

Donger
09-30-2009, 08:14 PM
I just don't understand this. I mean as an American. WTF would ANYONE oppose this?

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 08:17 PM
Because that wasn't the intent or authorization of your plan, particularly when there would be an explicit provision in your plan that stated "the wealthy are not allowed to take this money and allowing them to is punishable by jail or fines".

What difference does it make what the punishment is if I make no effort to enforce the rules?

Maybe I'll invent a new game where kids shoot rifles at each other. The object is to come as close to shooting somebody as possible without actually hitting them. It's against the rules to actually shoot somebody. I can then declare in all honesty that nobody will get shot as a result of playing my game. After all, that's not the intent, and nobody was authorized to shoot anyone.

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:23 PM
What difference does it make what the punishment is if I make no effort to enforce the rules?

Maybe I'll invent a new game where kids shoot rifles at each other. The object is to come as close to shooting somebody as possible without actually hitting them. It's against the rules to actually shoot somebody. I can then declare in all honesty that nobody will get shot as a result of playing my game. After all, that's not the intent, and nobody was authorized to shoot anyone.

who said there's no effort?

Medicare recovers millions in fraudulent claims every year, why wouldn't that happen here?


Like I stated, it's not my preferred solution, but calling someone a "liar" over it when the bill explicitly states illegals are not to be covered and there is an enforcement mechanism to prosecute fraudulent claims is just ridiculous.

dirk digler
09-30-2009, 08:28 PM
Photo id is not a good idea because almost all illegals have fake drivers license, SS cards etc...

The only way to stop this is to have a national id card that is tamper proof

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:29 PM
Photo id is not a good idea because almost all illegals have fake drivers license, SS cards etc...

The only way to stop this is to have a national id card that is tamper proof

I haven't met one yet that didn't have a photo id.

Saul Good
09-30-2009, 08:30 PM
who said there's no effort?

Medicare recovers millions in fraudulent claims every year, why wouldn't that happen here?


Like I stated, it's not my preferred solution, but calling someone a "liar" over it when the bill explicitly states illegals are not to be covered and there is an enforcement mechanism to prosecute fraudulent claims is just ridiculous.

Millions. Wow. Medicare lost more than $16 billion dollars to fraud, abuse and errors in 2004. http://www.ct.gov/agingservices/cwp/view.asp?a=2513&q=313038

I guess that, as long as we recover one 1000th of the amount of money we lose in fraud, we can claim that we are spending our money wisely.

Hell, we deport illegal immigrants every year, too. I don't think you would argue that our immigration stops people from entering the Country illegally.

What will this bill do to stop illegals from receiving health care at our expense that our current, "broken" system does not already do?

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:31 PM
Millions. Wow. Medicare lost more than $16 billion dollars to fraud, abuse and errors in 2004. http://www.ct.gov/agingservices/cwp/view.asp?a=2513&q=313038

I guess that, as long as we recover one 1000th of the amount of money we lose in fraud, we can claim that we are spending our money wisely.

Hell, we deport illegal immigrants every year, too. I don't think you would argue that our immigration stops people from entering the Country illegally.

What will this bill do to stop illegals from receiving health care at our expense that our current, "broken" system does not already do?

i don't know how else to make this more plain to you:

Like I stated, it's not my preferred solution, but calling someone a "liar" over it when the bill explicitly states illegals are not to be covered and there is an enforcement mechanism to prosecute fraudulent claims is just ridiculous.

dirk digler
09-30-2009, 08:32 PM
I haven't met one yet that didn't have a photo id.

Yep. You notice that the OP didn't post the whole article.

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:35 PM
Yep. You notice that the OP didn't post the whole article.

Yep, this commenter on that site was ahead of us:

If they have a fake or stolen ID, couldn't they just use that to show as ID? We will make them show ID because they may have fake ID's. Does Grassley realize how stupid this sounds? But it will make a great soundbite for those opposed to anything Obama.
BY Jack on 09/30/2009 at 15:06

RINGLEADER
09-30-2009, 08:40 PM
Don't limit abortion funds.

Don't require citizenship.

Don't keep the pledges of transparency.

Don't let the CBO analyze whether the bill will add to the deficit.

Pretty much everything Obama covered in his address to Congress is being ignored.

dirk digler
09-30-2009, 08:41 PM
Yep, this commenter on that site was ahead of us:

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out but apparently some of the people that posted on this thread are honestly pretty dumb.

banyon
09-30-2009, 08:45 PM
Don't limit abortion funds.

Don't require citizenship.

Don't keep the pledges of transparency.

Don't let the CBO analyze whether the bill will add to the deficit.

Pretty much everything Obama covered in his address to Congress is being ignored.

LIAR11!!!11

wild1
09-30-2009, 09:15 PM
Don't limit abortion funds.

Don't require citizenship.

Don't keep the pledges of transparency.

Don't let the CBO analyze whether the bill will add to the deficit.

Pretty much everything Obama covered in his address to Congress is being ignored.

change.

petegz28
09-30-2009, 10:40 PM
Obama lied...my pocket book died.....




sorry, I couldn't help it

alanm
09-30-2009, 11:34 PM
Like we didn't know this was going to happen. When have the Dems not catered to illegals? And it makes Obama look like a big ****ing liar to boot. Or even more so I should say.Joe Wilson is a hero.

KCTitus
09-30-2009, 11:42 PM
Obama lied...my Freedom died.....

FYP

KILLER_CLOWN
10-01-2009, 01:51 AM
Because otherwise you're a racist.

:LOL:

Norman Einstein
10-01-2009, 12:20 PM
Like I said before, the plan will cover illegals.

So, who is lying? You or the president? He said it will not cover illegals.

KCWolfman
10-01-2009, 12:23 PM
So, who is lying? You or the president? He said it will not cover illegals.

The plan has no contingencies to verify if someone is a legal citizen or not.

The verification process was simple - an approved photo identification, but was shot down by the neocomms in the Senate.

petegz28
10-01-2009, 12:24 PM
So, who is lying? You or the president? He said it will not cover illegals.

Yea, he just forgot to mention they won't make you prove you aren't illegal. :thumb:

Saul Good
10-01-2009, 04:57 PM
Yep, this commenter on that site was ahead of us:

Because some illegals may have fake IDs, we shouldn't ask for IDs from anyone? Great logic. Some teenagers have fake IDs, too. Shouldn't we stop carding kids when they buy booze?

Let's not address the idea of having an ID that can't be forged. Instead, let's just cover illegals.

Great plan.

banyon
10-01-2009, 05:23 PM
Because some illegals may have fake IDs, we shouldn't ask for IDs from anyone? Great logic. Some teenagers have fake IDs, too. Shouldn't we stop carding kids when they buy booze?

Let's not address the idea of having an ID that can't be forged. Instead, let's just cover illegals.

Great plan.

it's not some.

it was your complaint that some people would get away with health care fraud as illegals because the enforcement mechanisms were defective, wasn't it? You wanted to be able to call people liars who stated the plan didn't provide immigrants benefits.

Now when it's pointed out to you that the ID requirement not a very effective deterrent either, you want to say it doesn't matter? Doesn't your logic on that mean people get to question your honesty (not that I think people should, but just applying the lofty standard demanded earlier in the thread)?

KCWolfman
10-02-2009, 12:07 AM
it's not some.

it was your complaint that some people would get away with health care fraud as illegals because the enforcement mechanisms were defective, wasn't it? You wanted to be able to call people liars who stated the plan didn't provide immigrants benefits.

Now when it's pointed out to you that the ID requirement not a very effective deterrent either, you want to say it doesn't matter? Doesn't your logic on that mean people get to question your honesty (not that I think people should, but just applying the lofty standard demanded earlier in the thread)?

What leads you to believe it is not an effective deterrent? And if it isn't, what does it matter if the amendment stays in?

There is only one reason to remove the amendment and that is to make it easier for illegals to obtain services they have no right to obtain.