Prestor Jon wrote: Personally, I enjoy deadlock and wished it happened more often. The govt that governs least governs best.
You're clearly a reasonable dude and I agree with a lot of what you posted in thius thread but... I'm not an economist, but when we lost our AAA credit score due to the gridlock over budgetary issues... I'm not so sure the above is true.
Again, you're being more than a little dishonest with timelines here.
Just like when you said that Mr. Reid removing filibusters should have meant no problems for President Obama getting nominees confirmed (and omitting that didn't happen until 5 years into his presidency after nearly unbroken stonewalling of his nominees); you're producing a proposal to replace the ACA that's 10 months old and pretending that's what they meant to do for the nearly 4 years in between the law getting signed and that being suggested as a replacement.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I may be going massively OT here, but if the DoE was created in 1980, then it was created UNDER REAGAN'S WATCH (apologies for the capitals )
What happened to Reagan taking on big government, what happened to Reagan being the scourge of red tape and bureaucracy, what happened to Reagan cutting back the deficit? Now it seems the guy was creating departments left right and centre and throwing money on the fire!
Damn this thread for destroying the Ronald Reagan myth!
Well, most myths aren't true. Reagan greatly increased the deficit, got the EITC instituted, raised taxes, gave amnesty to illegal aliens, and so on.
That being said, the Department of Education isn't on him - Jimmy Carter signed that, thus giving Mr. Reagan's administration more time to spend on illegally selling arms to Iran.
Tell you what... do you want me to list out the things they did?
-Bailout Banks?
-Bailout GM at expense of bankruptcy laws?
-Solyndra (picking winners/losers)?
-Packed the DC appellate court?
-Obamacare?
I can keep going...
You realize that TARP and GM were Bush's babies right?
I don't like Obama either but I'm at least going to dislike him for things he did. Hell, TARP and the auto bailout were proudly announced by Bush...seriously 10 seconds on the internet.
I'm confused. Were we supposed to let the banks fail? We're not Iceland, who was able to let the banks fail because the debt in their banks was foreign and not a domestic retail market collapse.
Again, you're being more than a little dishonest with timelines here.
Just like when you said that Mr. Reid removing filibusters should have meant no problems for President Obama getting nominees confirmed (and omitting that didn't happen until 5 years into his presidency after nearly unbroken stonewalling of his nominees); you're producing a proposal to replace the ACA that's 10 months old and pretending that's what they meant to do for the nearly 4 years in between the law getting signed and that being suggested as a replacement.
It's not the only plan Ouze... there were MANY other alternative proposals even after the passage of the ACA.
And for some of Obama appointees, some opposition were bipartisan. But, you'd have to admit, the Reid rule was effective in packing liberal-idealogues in the court.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, it's rapidly not becoming about the other midterms anymore, either. So, that's OK.
Yeah... do we need a new thread or keep the political crap here?
Ouze wrote: Well, it's rapidly not becoming about the other midterms anymore, either. So, that's OK.
Yeah... do we need a new thread or keep the political crap here?
1) Best to keep it all in one spot, for ease of nuking when it inevitably goes sideways. If you'd like I could change to title to something more general, 'US Midterm elections and the political consequences' or something similar.
2) You are one of the users most heavily involved in the political 'crap' in this thread, so that is an interesting choice of words ha
Ouze wrote: Well, it's rapidly not becoming about the other midterms anymore, either. So, that's OK.
Yeah... do we need a new thread or keep the political crap here?
1) Best to keep it all in one spot, for ease of nuking when it inevitably goes sideways. If you'd like I could change to title to something more general, 'US Midterm elections and the political consequences' or something similar.
Sure... change it to what you think is appropriate.
2) You are one of the users most heavily involved in the political 'crap' in this thread, so that is an interesting choice of words ha
I'm a political junkie... of course all of this is crap.
At the very least this thread should be good for a few more months. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell actually helps to end gridlock as he has promised. The fact he could even say that with a straight face was amazing.
Ouze wrote: At the very least this thread should be good for a few more months. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell actually helps to end gridlock as he has promised. The fact he could even say that with a straight face was amazing.
Why? Is it because you think Obama will have a temper tantrums and not sign gak?
"Here's a proposal that completely undoes you signature accomplishment and provides nothing in return. Now, will you sign it... or are you an obstructionist?"
Ouze wrote: At the very least this thread should be good for a few more months. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell actually helps to end gridlock as he has promised. The fact he could even say that with a straight face was amazing.
If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Who changed this thread title? I've spent five minutes of my life rooting around for something that was under my nose!
Why don't you just get a tissue and blow it?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Ouze wrote: At the very least this thread should be good for a few more months. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell actually helps to end gridlock as he has promised. The fact he could even say that with a straight face was amazing.
If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
I voted for Romney, but I was really hoping that the two good things to come out of this would be the closing of Gitmo and repealing the patriot act. The PA was the single largest blow to individual freedom in a long time and what did Obama do? He doubled down on it.
If I were a liberal, I'd be livid. (Oh, and I'd also be pissed about that whole transparency thing. Yeah, that didn't happen either.)
Easy E wrote: Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.
1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?
2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?
3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?
4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?
The economy is not recovering for a majority of people. The US has been through a structural economic change. Serious, continuous long term work needs to be done.
Ouze wrote: "Here's a proposal that completely undoes you signature accomplishment and provides nothing in return. Now, will you sign it... or are you an obstructionist?"
Yep... 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans.
It's that toxic. However, I would expect the GOP to "give up something" in return to force his signature.
(ie, keeping the popular pieces of the leglisation... no lifetime max, co pre-existing condition exclusion, etc..).
That way, it doesn't completed undo his craptastic law and gives him something to crow about when he leaves.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Easy E wrote: Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.
1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?
2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?
3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?
4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?
The economy is not recovering for a majority of people. The US has been through a structural economic change. Serious, continuous long term work needs to be done.
Right. Which iswhy I am wonering why they voted for Republicans? You are mad bout the economy not growing for a large portion of people and your reaction is to vote for the people that think cutting taxes and reducing regulation for the people that have benefitted from the recovering economy is the solution? There is low information voting and then their is just idiocy.
Whembly answered it best though. You vote for the Republicans because they weren't the ones in office.
Ouze wrote: "Here's a proposal that completely undoes you signature accomplishment and provides nothing in return. Now, will you sign it... or are you an obstructionist?"
Yep... 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans.
It's that toxic.
Either people voted on a single issue, which is stupid, or parties are pretending it was about one issue, which is stupid. Either way it is stupid.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Although that means neither of them get everything their own way.
These days its all or nothing for everyone up there. All they have to do is give lip service to compromise, statesmanship, or bipartisanship. I blame the electorate more than them though. We created this atmosphere and picked these people and for the minor changes that occurred more stayed the same. It is a change to be sure, but in the end slightly red states got slightly redder and it isn't as control hasn't changed before. As mentioned before, "meet the new boss same as the old boss". So far it seems everything is staying the course of intractability, just now it will be louder and whinier.
Ouze wrote: "Here's a proposal that completely undoes you signature accomplishment and provides nothing in return. Now, will you sign it... or are you an obstructionist?"
Yep... 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans.
It's that toxic.
Either people voted on a single issue, which is stupid, or parties are pretending it was about one issue, which is stupid. Either way it is stupid.
Unfortunately, low-information voter tends to be "single issues".-
Co'tor Shas wrote:Although that means neither of them get everything their own way.
These days its all or nothing for everyone up there. All they have to do is give lip service to compromise, statesmanship, or bipartisanship. I blame the electorate more than them though. We created this atmosphere and picked these people and for the minor changes that occurred more stayed the same. It is a change to be sure, but in the end slightly red states got slightly redder and it isn't as control hasn't changed before. As mentioned before, "meet the new boss same as the old boss". So far it seems everything is staying the course of intractability, just now it will be louder and whinier.
Yep, but it will be interesting to see what the Republicans do over the next two years. If they play even one card badly enough, they risk handing 2016 to the Democrats.
One thing I am scared of is possible cuts to the NPS, like what happened under Bush. It's on multiple levels, first, they are very importing for protecting our historical monuments, both man-made and natural, as well as preserving our wilderness areas, and my father works their, and would not want him to get a pay cut or lose his job. Were not exactly well off to begin with. Firmly middle class.
Co'tor Shas wrote: One thing I am scared of is possible cuts to the NPS, like what happened under Bush. It's on multiple levels, first, they are very importing for protecting our historical monuments, both man-made and natural, as well as preserving our wilderness areas, and my father works their, and would not want him to get a pay cut or lose his job. Were not exactly well off to begin with. Firmly middle class.
I'm nervous for the cuts to the science and environmental sectors, since Ted Cruz and James Inhofe will be chairing the Subcommittee on Science and Space and Environment and Public Works Committees. Having someone who claims that the Scientific Theory, not just a number of scientific principles, but the process of gathering information through observations it self is a hoax in charge of how the government handles scientific development and research just makes me uneasy.
I'm also nervous about things like the EPA and bank regulations. With all of the damage that can happen with both things being further unregulated, it's going to be interesting and possibly terrifying over what happens the next few years.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Well, I could easily point out all the things that the previous administration promised and never delivered on - funding pell grants, tax cuts aimed at the working class, and so on and so forth. But ultimately #whataboutism is fething stupid and at some point you need to realize that doing it makes you look like a toolbox, so I'm not going to do that. My point was that it seems unlikely with Mitch McConnells historyit seems unlikely he is the man to fulfill what he says he will, 2 days or whatever ago.
Unfortunately, low-information voter tends to be "single issues".
Eh, that's not really true. Low information voters make choices for many different reasons. Sometimes its party identity, sometimes its candidate characterization, sometimes its multiple issues they know little about, and yeah, sometimes its a single issue they know little about. There is no pronounced tendency within that group, because it is broad and poorly defined.
Unfortunately, low-information voter tends to be "single issues".
Eh, that's not really true. Low information voters make choices for many different reasons. Sometimes its party identity, sometimes its candidate characterization, sometimes its multiple issues they know little about, and yeah, sometimes its a single issue they know little about. There is no pronounced tendency within that group, because it is broad and poorly defined.
One could also argue that our entire system is designed to be used by low-information voters since voters are supposed to elect people that know about issues, hence the whole "representative democracy" thing.
One could also argue that our entire system is designed to be used by low-information voters since voters are supposed to elect people that know about issues, hence the whole "representative democracy" thing.
Well, voters are supposed to elect representatives who represent their interests. The system breaks down when the representatives start telling those voters what they're interests are, and those voters start believing them.
Double points for when representing the interests of you constituency is considered bad or good, depending on what side of the R/D fence you're on.
One could also argue that our entire system is designed to be used by low-information voters since voters are supposed to elect people that know about issues, hence the whole "representative democracy" thing.
Well, voters are supposed to elect representatives who represent their interests. The system breaks down when the representatives start telling those voters what they're interests are, and those voters start believing them.
True, that's how we end up with red states passing liberal ballot measures while sending Republicans to the Senate.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If you're waiting on fulfilled promises then pick a number and wait in line. We're still waiting for the most transparent Administration ever, the reduction in foreign military adventures, rolling back the damage from the Patriot Act, and the closing of Gitmo
Well, I could easily point out all the things that the previous administration promised and never delivered on - funding pell grants, tax cuts aimed at the working class, and so on and so forth. But ultimately #whataboutism is fething stupid and at some point you need to realize that doing it makes you look like a toolbox, so I'm not going to do that. My point was that it seems unlikely with Mitch McConnells historyit seems unlikely he is the man to fulfill what he says he will, 2 days or whatever ago.
Cool.
Remind us again which Administration is in power, and still has the ability to deliver on their promises?
If you were observing American elections from the outside, you might be asking yourself the following:
Can't these people make up their minds? Four out of the last five elections (2006, 2008, 2010 and now 2014) were "wave" elections in which one party won a sweeping victory. They elect a president of one party, then two years later almost inevitably give the other party a huge victory in the midterm election. Why do they expect things to change?
Good question. It's always dangerous to speak of a country of 319 million as having a singular will, or of an election expressing that will. That's particularly true when only about 40% of eligible voters show up for midterm elections. Like every party that wins, the GOP will claim that "the American people" have endorsed its agenda in full, and therefore if President Barack Obama stands in its way, then he's thwarting the public's desires.
We've established that the public is fed up with a Congress seemingly incapable of getting anything done. The trouble is that the voters -- unanimous in their abhorrence of gridlock -- just delivered a result almost guaranteed to produce more gridlock.
To be fair, there was one party assuring them that their votes would do just the opposite. Republican candidates promised voters that they'd stand in Obama's way, and also promised that they'd "get things done," sometimes in the same sentence. As The Atlantic's Molly Ball reported last week, "these two seemingly contradictory messages are at the heart of Republican Senate campaigns across the country. I've heard them from candidate after candidate."
Working with the next Congress President ready to compromise with GOP? Parties keep leaders on a short leash Obama and McConnell: The first test
It's one thing to vote Republican because it's the party that reflects your beliefs. But if you're voting Republican because you want to see Congress become more conciliatory and productive, you really should have been paying closer attention the last six years.
That's because obstructionism hasn't been an accident, or a reaction to moves on Obama's part that Republicans found objectionable. It was a strategy they employed from the outset. Literally on the day Obama was inaugurated, Republican leaders gathered over dinner and made a decision to oppose everything he proposed, to deny him both substantive progress and whatever political benefits might accrue to a president who looks like he's accomplishing things.
In 2010, Mitch McConnell explained to The New York Times how important it was to present a unified front of opposition to the President's proposals, because then the public would dismiss the debate as just partisan bickering. "Mr. McConnell spent hours listening to the worries and ideas of Republicans," the paper reported, "urging them not to be seduced by the attention-grabbing possibilities of cutting a bipartisan deal."
As political strategy, it was extremely astute and executed to near perfection. McConnell understood well that the President gets credit when Washington works and blame when it doesn't -- whether he deserves it in either case. So Republicans could pour sand in the gears of government and watch Obama suffer for it.
And it worked. What was the result of six years of unprecedented filibusters, debt ceiling crises, a government shutdown, 50 futile Affordable Care Act repeal votes, endless conspiracy theorizing and a dramatic increase in general buffoonery? Republicans took back the House in 2010, and have now taken the Senate.
Voters rewarded their misdeeds by returning them to power.
And now politicians in both parties are saying they want to come together to accomplish things for the public. The problem is that they don't agree on the things they'd like to accomplish. The argument isn't over means; it's over ends. That'll be even truer when the new Congress is inaugurated in January than it is now.
The new class of freshman Republicans in both the House and Senate is even more conservative than the existing GOP caucus (if you thought such a thing was possible), and to them, "getting things done" means slashing environmental protections, taking away health coverage from the millions who have obtained it through the Affordable Care Act and cutting taxes on the wealthy.
If those new representatives actually managed to turn those beliefs into law, the public would say, "Hey, we didn't vote for that!" And they didn't, even in this Republican-leaning year.
Voters in four deep-red states -- Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota -- used ballot initiatives to approve one of the Democratic Party's highest economic priorities, increasing the minimum wage. "Personhood" initiatives that would ban abortion failed, not only in the swing state of Colorado but in conservative North Dakota as well.
In other words, where voters had the chance to decide policy issues, they chose the Democratic position even as they were voting for Republican candidates.
So what do the American people want? They want to have their cake and eat it, too. As political scientists have known for decades, Americans are "symbolic conservatives" but "operational liberals" -- they like things like small government in the abstract, but they also like all the things government does.
They elect Democrats who try to accomplish complex policy goals, then turn around and elect Republicans when things don't work perfectly. They say they hate gridlock, then elect people who will give them more of it.
And two years from now, a whole new crop of candidates will barnstorm the country, saying, "Elect me, and we'll clean up this mess." And the voters (or at least enough of them) will, despite all evidence and experience, actually buy it.
I'm sure there are differences in interpretation of various elements in that article, but I think it does make some good abstract points. Dysfunction is the name of the game in D.C., and I don't think it will change with this latest round of elections. The Republicans will swoop in, thinking they can do anything they want, then find out they can't do anything they want because, gasp, there are still some Democrats in the way, and then we're back to gridlock and the PR game to see who wins in 2016. Then 2018, 2020, and so on.
I've said it before, not one of these politicians ultimately truly cares about the country's success. They only care about their own personal gravy train and the perpetuation of their political party's influence and power. They can freely run the country into the ground, and it won't matter because every one of them is rich enough, well placed enough, or otherwise is in a position to be completely unaffected by however badly they fail.
If you were observing American elections from the outside, you might be asking yourself the following:
Can't these people make up their minds? Four out of the last five elections (2006, 2008, 2010 and now 2014) were "wave" elections in which one party won a sweeping victory. They elect a president of one party, then two years later almost inevitably give the other party a huge victory in the midterm election. Why do they expect things to change?
Good question. It's always dangerous to speak of a country of 319 million as having a singular will, or of an election expressing that will. That's particularly true when only about 40% of eligible voters show up for midterm elections. Like every party that wins, the GOP will claim that "the American people" have endorsed its agenda in full, and therefore if President Barack Obama stands in its way, then he's thwarting the public's desires.
We've established that the public is fed up with a Congress seemingly incapable of getting anything done. The trouble is that the voters -- unanimous in their abhorrence of gridlock -- just delivered a result almost guaranteed to produce more gridlock.
To be fair, there was one party assuring them that their votes would do just the opposite. Republican candidates promised voters that they'd stand in Obama's way, and also promised that they'd "get things done," sometimes in the same sentence. As The Atlantic's Molly Ball reported last week, "these two seemingly contradictory messages are at the heart of Republican Senate campaigns across the country. I've heard them from candidate after candidate."
Working with the next Congress President ready to compromise with GOP? Parties keep leaders on a short leash Obama and McConnell: The first test
It's one thing to vote Republican because it's the party that reflects your beliefs. But if you're voting Republican because you want to see Congress become more conciliatory and productive, you really should have been paying closer attention the last six years.
That's because obstructionism hasn't been an accident, or a reaction to moves on Obama's part that Republicans found objectionable. It was a strategy they employed from the outset. Literally on the day Obama was inaugurated, Republican leaders gathered over dinner and made a decision to oppose everything he proposed, to deny him both substantive progress and whatever political benefits might accrue to a president who looks like he's accomplishing things.
In 2010, Mitch McConnell explained to The New York Times how important it was to present a unified front of opposition to the President's proposals, because then the public would dismiss the debate as just partisan bickering. "Mr. McConnell spent hours listening to the worries and ideas of Republicans," the paper reported, "urging them not to be seduced by the attention-grabbing possibilities of cutting a bipartisan deal."
As political strategy, it was extremely astute and executed to near perfection. McConnell understood well that the President gets credit when Washington works and blame when it doesn't -- whether he deserves it in either case. So Republicans could pour sand in the gears of government and watch Obama suffer for it.
And it worked. What was the result of six years of unprecedented filibusters, debt ceiling crises, a government shutdown, 50 futile Affordable Care Act repeal votes, endless conspiracy theorizing and a dramatic increase in general buffoonery? Republicans took back the House in 2010, and have now taken the Senate.
Voters rewarded their misdeeds by returning them to power.
And now politicians in both parties are saying they want to come together to accomplish things for the public. The problem is that they don't agree on the things they'd like to accomplish. The argument isn't over means; it's over ends. That'll be even truer when the new Congress is inaugurated in January than it is now.
The new class of freshman Republicans in both the House and Senate is even more conservative than the existing GOP caucus (if you thought such a thing was possible), and to them, "getting things done" means slashing environmental protections, taking away health coverage from the millions who have obtained it through the Affordable Care Act and cutting taxes on the wealthy.
If those new representatives actually managed to turn those beliefs into law, the public would say, "Hey, we didn't vote for that!" And they didn't, even in this Republican-leaning year.
Voters in four deep-red states -- Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota -- used ballot initiatives to approve one of the Democratic Party's highest economic priorities, increasing the minimum wage. "Personhood" initiatives that would ban abortion failed, not only in the swing state of Colorado but in conservative North Dakota as well.
In other words, where voters had the chance to decide policy issues, they chose the Democratic position even as they were voting for Republican candidates.
So what do the American people want? They want to have their cake and eat it, too. As political scientists have known for decades, Americans are "symbolic conservatives" but "operational liberals" -- they like things like small government in the abstract, but they also like all the things government does.
They elect Democrats who try to accomplish complex policy goals, then turn around and elect Republicans when things don't work perfectly. They say they hate gridlock, then elect people who will give them more of it.
And two years from now, a whole new crop of candidates will barnstorm the country, saying, "Elect me, and we'll clean up this mess." And the voters (or at least enough of them) will, despite all evidence and experience, actually buy it.
I'm sure there are differences in interpretation of various elements in that article, but I think it does make some good abstract points. Dysfunction is the name of the game in D.C., and I don't think it will change with this latest round of elections. The Republicans will swoop in, thinking they can do anything they want, then find out they can't do anything they want because, gasp, there are still some Democrats in the way, and then we're back to gridlock and the PR game to see who wins in 2016. Then 2018, 2020, and so on.
I've said it before, not one of these politicians ultimately truly cares about the country's success. They only care about their own personal gravy train and the perpetuation of their political party's influence and power. They can freely run the country into the ground, and it won't matter because every one of them is rich enough, well placed enough, or otherwise is in a position to be completely unaffected by however badly they fail.
That articles point is that there is a huge generational divide between current crop of senior citizens (when I voted on Tuesday there was maybe two dozen old people there and one other girl who looked my age), who overwhelmingly vote republican and my generation tends to vote democrat. Except senior citizens have high turnout at every election and my generation has much lower turn out at midterms than general elections.
So it possible going forward republicans win big every midterm, and then democrats win big during the general elections. Which is a bad sign for anyone wanting less gridlock in Washington.
That articles point is that there is a huge generational divide between current crop of senior citizens (when I voted on Tuesday there was maybe two dozen old people there and one other girl who looked my age), who overwhelmingly vote republican and my generation tends to vote democrat. Except senior citizens have high turnout at every election and my generation has much lower turn out at midterms than general elections.
So it possible going forward republicans win big every midterm, and then democrats win big during the general elections. Which is a bad sign for anyone wanting less gridlock in Washington.
Speaking generally, yeah, the older generations come from a time when voting really was seen as a civic duty, so they're more likely to vote than us lazy young'uns.
I do often wonder, though, what would happen if we had a way to vote electronically. Go to a website or a smartphone app or something. What keeps most people from voting is that you have to actually go to the voting place, and wait in line. Eliminate those obstacles, and there would be a lot more voters. But, it is not in the interests of the political machine to do this, as it would upset the balance.
That articles point is that there is a huge generational divide between current crop of senior citizens (when I voted on Tuesday there was maybe two dozen old people there and one other girl who looked my age), who overwhelmingly vote republican and my generation tends to vote democrat. Except senior citizens have high turnout at every election and my generation has much lower turn out at midterms than general elections.
So it possible going forward republicans win big every midterm, and then democrats win big during the general elections. Which is a bad sign for anyone wanting less gridlock in Washington.
Speaking generally, yeah, the older generations come from a time when voting really was seen as a civic duty, so they're more likely to vote than us lazy young'uns.
I do often wonder, though, what would happen if we had a way to vote electronically. Go to a website or a smartphone app or something. What keeps most people from voting is that you have to actually go to the voting place, and wait in line. Eliminate those obstacles, and there would be a lot more voters. But, it is not in the interests of the political machine to do this, as it would upset the balance.
Or making voting day a National Holiday. Problem solved.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think some countries do that already. It's actually a great idea, gets more people to vote.
It would make it a lot easier for people who work, for sure. What would be the economic impact, though, is something that probably should go into the consideration, plus the effect of government shutting down for yet another day.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think some countries do that already. It's actually a great idea, gets more people to vote.
It would make it a lot easier for people who work, for sure. What would be the economic impact, though, is something that probably should go into the consideration, plus the effect of government shutting down for yet another day.
Let's see, should I vote, or party the night before; as is the wont of most people who work when they expect a holiday.
And this is, of course, assuming that all employers and government entities respect the holiday.
RivenSkull wrote: Or making voting day a National Holiday. Problem solved.
Or here's a better solution: easy access to early voting. There's no reason to even have a single election day at all, just accept votes for a month and make sure you have plenty of voting hours right before the deadline.
RivenSkull wrote: Or making voting day a National Holiday. Problem solved.
Or here's a better solution: easy access to early voting. There's no reason to even have a single election day at all, just accept votes for a month and make sure you have plenty of voting hours right before the deadline.
RivenSkull wrote: Or making voting day a National Holiday. Problem solved.
Or here's a better solution: easy access to early voting. There's no reason to even have a single election day at all, just accept votes for a month and make sure you have plenty of voting hours right before the deadline.
That's what I do. No muss, no fuss.
My state had early voting from oct 23rd to Nov 4th. I went at 5pm on thursday oct 23rd and walked right in and voted. No line. I voted early the exact same way during the previous election on a presidential year and waited 2 hours.
We already pretty much have plenty of early voting time... the issue isn't lack of voting locations or the window to vote, it is people just choose not to go do it.
RivenSkull wrote: Or making voting day a National Holiday. Problem solved.
Or here's a better solution: easy access to early voting. There's no reason to even have a single election day at all, just accept votes for a month and make sure you have plenty of voting hours right before the deadline.
Yeah, that's also a great option. If only there wasn't an effort in a number of red states for the past few years that reduced the amount of early voting options.
Personally, I want the US to adopt the Brazil idea of voting: Mandatory. Have all of October open to voting, with Nov 4 being the final day and a holiday, and it's a requirement for all citizens.
Yeah, that's also a great option. If only there wasn't an effort in a number of red states for the past few years that reduced the amount of early voting options.
Personally, I want the US to adopt the Brazil idea of voting: Mandatory. Have all of October open to voting, with Nov 4 being the final day and a holiday, and it's a requirement for all citizens.
But Government in our face Hur Dur
I personally am a fan of how some European countries seem to do it:
No signs, no ads, no campaigning. Period. Not until 6 weeks pre-election.
IMO, that would "free up" all that time in between to actually do their "work" as opposed to campaigning for 4 years or however long their term is. (One reason I think that politicians are campaigning their entire term, is because of 24 hour news channels displaying EVERY decision they make as if it's a campaign year)
They thing I dislike is the massive lead time some states have for their "early voting". A month may be necessary to ensure mail ballets are given to overseas military and others but it can be bad locally when politicians do stupid things late in the game that reveal who they really are and people suddenly regret their early vote.
Another thing to get rid of is all this electronic machine voting. Apparently the machines aren't being maintained properly by the various voting commissions and the company that made them might not be in business to continue supporting them when software problems are identified.
Yeah, that's also a great option. If only there wasn't an effort in a number of red states for the past few years that reduced the amount of early voting options.
Personally, I want the US to adopt the Brazil idea of voting: Mandatory. Have all of October open to voting, with Nov 4 being the final day and a holiday, and it's a requirement for all citizens.
But Government in our face Hur Dur
I personally am a fan of how some European countries seem to do it:
No signs, no ads, no campaigning. Period. Not until 6 weeks pre-election.
IMO, that would "free up" all that time in between to actually do their "work" as opposed to campaigning for 4 years or however long their term is. (One reason I think that politicians are campaigning their entire term, is because of 24 hour news channels displaying EVERY decision they make as if it's a campaign year)
Just Imagine:
2 Month limit on campaigning, a month to be able to vote at your town hall/post office, and a set holiday for voting to round up the remaining votes. Compulsory may be pushing it, but ensuring that more than 35% of people actually show up would be a plus.
Hell, I just want the notion that money is political speech to be abolished and get money out of the political landscape. Then, maybe term limits on things like senators, though if the financial interests are removed I feel there would probably be less problems of politicians being the puppets of corporate interests.
I let the candidate's voting record do 95% of their talking for me. Places like votesmart are a good beginning to check on what your representatives are doing:
2 Month limit on campaigning, a month to be able to vote at your town hall/post office, and a set holiday for voting to round up the remaining votes. Compulsory may be pushing it, but ensuring that more than 35% of people actually show up would be a plus.
Here's an even better option: install a voting booth at every major grocery store or even at gas stations, where all you have to do is swipe your driver's license (or other approved ID) to activate it. Everybody has to go to the grocery store or gas station sometimes, right? That would eliminate the inconvenience of going out of your way to wherever the voting station is. Just think, even outside of election times, such machines could still be used to allow people to vote on various policies to give the politicians an idea of what's going on.
From pot to crony capitalism, here are suggestions for the Republican-controlled Congress.
So Republicans have taken back the Senate and in January will control both houses of Congress. That brings them to the question posed by a famous political book: You won — Now what?
The problem for Republicans is that because they do not have a veto-proof majority, they can pass bills but can't get them past President Obama. It doesn't mean that they're doomed to futility. They can pass three kinds of bills: those Obama will want to sign; those he won't want to sign but will have to; and those he'll veto, but where a veto is unpopular. With that in mind, I have six suggestions for the new GOP-controlled Congress:
1 End the federally imposed 21-year-old drinking age. The limit was dreamed up in the 1980s as a bit of political posturing by then-secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. It has been a disaster. College drinking hasn't been reduced; it has just moved out of bars and into dorm rooms, fraternities/sororities and house parties. The result has been a boom in alcohol problems on campus. While drunken driving has declined, it was declining before the age was raised and has declined just as fast in Canada, where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province.
As John McCardell, vice chancellor of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., writes, "If you infantilize someone, do not be surprised when infantile behavior — like binge drinking — results." Easing pressure on states to raise their own drinking ages is consistent with GOP ideals. Obama hasn't been hot on lowering the drinking age, but it's hard to imagine him vetoing this.
2 Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Many states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law. That's bound to change sooner or later — and the GOP might as well get ahead of it. Would Obama veto it? Doubtful.
3 Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This awful law passed in the Clinton era is a giveaway to the entertainment industry. It places major burdens on Internet and computer users and electronic innovators. In fact, we should reform copyright law in general: A 28-year term was good enough when America was new; double that would be fair enough now as opposed to the nearly perpetual duration copyrights enjoy today. Shorter copyrights would encourage Hollywood and the music industry to produce new material, instead of endlessly recycling old stuff.
Bonus for Republicans: The entertainment industries hate them, so this would be a species of payback. Would Obama veto this, protecting fat-cat industry types who were his own big contributors? Probably, but it wouldn't look good.
4 Make birth-control pills available over the counter. Cory Gardner made this a part of his winning platform in Colorado's Senate race. Let women choose. If Obama vetoed this, Republicans could accuse him of waging "war on women."
5 End public-sector employee unions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker eliminated dues-withholding for public employee unions in his state. The unions were so angry that they organized a recall campaign against him. They lost. They then tried to recall a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who upheld his action. They lost. They then tried to beat Walker in last week's election. They lost again.
President Franklin Roosevelt opposed public employee unions because he thought that people whose salaries came from the taxpayers shouldn't have the right to collectively bargain against citizens whose taxes were being collected by force, and that collective bargaining by public employees was a conflict of interest. He was right. Obama would veto this, but his veto would be highly unpopular and set up an issue for 2016.
6 Institute a "revolving door" surtax on those who make more in post-government employment. Leave a Treasury job making $150,000 a year to take one in private industry paying $750,000, and you'll pay 50% surtax on the $600,000 difference. Most of the increased pay is based on knowledge and connections you got while on Uncle Sam's dime, so why shouldn't Uncle Sam get a share? An Obama veto would be unpopular.
These are my suggestions, and they look like easy point-scorers for the GOP Congress, with the added advantage that they're the right thing to do. Plus, passing them, and watching the reaction, would be fun. At this point, I think we all deserve a little fun.
Number 6 is rather vague. What about someone who worked a $150,000 government job, then went on to work for $750,000 a year in a completely unrelated field that has nothing to do with their former government work? Does it apply to the privates making $20,000 a year who leaves the Marines and then gets a job worth 60k? #6 strikes me as rather radical hypocrisy for a party that demands we not tax the rich (unless you got rich by some specific arbitrary standard*). That would not end well for Repubs. It's stupid, and too easy to turn around in their faces.
The rest of that list is actually okay by me, though the Reps are never going to back #4. It would be smart, but they'll never do it. I'm also not sure #5 is accurate. Yeah, that might fly in Wisconsin, but it's Wisconsin. That would go over very very badly in key battle ground states like Virginia, PA, and Florida. I question if a veto on that would be as unpopular as the author wants to believe nationwide.
*I fail to see how someone who got rich via government connections they've collected over their lives is somehow less worthy of being rich than someone born into a six figure hedge fund, or you know, people who got rich via non-government connections they've collected over their lives. Granted, I'm all for taxing the rich, but deciding one guy making 700k deserves to be taxed more more than another making 700k over something so arbitrary smacks of a distasteful double standard.
LordofHats wrote: Number 6 is rather vague. What about someone who worked a $150,000 government job, then went on to work for $750,000 a year in a completely unrelated field that has nothing to do with their former government work? Does it apply to the privates making $20,000 a year who leaves the Marines and then gets a job worth 60k? #6 strikes me as rather radical hypocrisy for a party that demands we not tax the rich (unless you got rich by some specific arbitrary standard*). That would not end well for Repubs. It's stupid, and too easy to turn around in their faces.
The rest of that list is actually okay by me, though the Reps are never going to back #4. It would be smart, but they'll never do it. I'm also not sure #5 is accurate. Yeah, that might fly in Wisconsin, but it's Wisconsin. That would go over very very badly in key battle ground states like Virginia, PA, and Florida. I question if a veto on that would be as unpopular as the author wants to believe nationwide.
*I fail to see how someone who got rich via government connections they've collected over their lives is somehow less worthy of being rich than someone born into a six figure hedge fund, or you know, people who got rich via non-government connections they've collected over their lives.
I definitely take it as being one based solely on "insider knowledge" I mean, your Marine Private who makes 20k a year, gets a security job with "blackwater" or someone like it making 60k isn't using insider knowledge. He's using his trained skills.
A Colonel who was the military "head" of a major project, such as the Apache Longbow project. He retires from the army, and gets a job at whatever company it is that makes/ does RnD for the Apache has insider knowledge. Of course, anyone who's had a DoD "ethics" briefing knows that that is unethical, and shouldn't be done (but we all kind of know does happen)
I definitely take it as being one based solely on "insider knowledge" I mean, your Marine Private who makes 20k a year, gets a security job with "blackwater" or someone like it making 60k isn't using insider knowledge. He's using his trained skills.
A Colonel who was the military "head" of a major project, such as the Apache Longbow project. He retires from the army, and gets a job at whatever company it is that makes/ does RnD for the Apache has insider knowledge. Of course, anyone who's had a DoD "ethics" briefing knows that that is unethical, and shouldn't be done (but we all kind of know does happen)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I definitely take it as being one based solely on "insider knowledge" I mean,
Most people in the business world have insider knowledge. Ever wonder why companies in the same industry have a tendency to play musical chairs with the same set of executives? Raging that a government employee makes money, then goes on to make more money, has nothing to do with insider knowledge. It's just raging that someone did what everyone in the business world does. Use connections gained in one business deal to move up into their next business deal. Except in that previous business deal they got tax dollars as salary, so now you demand they pay the tax payers back with interest, only the interest never runs out.
That was mostly a good wishlist that isn't going to happen at all.What you are going to see:
Many, many bills to defund the ACA. These will be vetoed. This process will be repeated over and over again.
New federal restrictions on abortion, or attempts to do the same.
A laughably unpassable budget that dramatically slashes social programs, keeps the military where it is or increases it, has no hope of being signed, and is intended solely for use as a thin veneer of making an effort - "well, we proposed a budget! Why won't the president work with us?"
In other words, 2 years of stupidity and shenanigans, just as the American public wanted.
Ouze wrote: That was mostly a good wishlist that isn't going to happen at all.What you are going to see:
Many, many bills to defund the ACA. These will be vetoed. This process will be repeated over and over again.
Yup.
Or... better yet, if the Subsidy is ruled by the SC to only cover State Exchange. The gak will hit the fan.
New federal restrictions on abortion, or attempts to do the same.
Doubt it.
A laughably unpassable budget that dramatically slashes social programs, keeps the military where it is or increases it, has no hope of being signed, and is intended solely for use as a thin veneer of making an effort - "well, we proposed a budget! Why won't the president work with us?"
We'll see... eh? Seems like you've already made up your mind.
In other words, 2 years of stupidity and shenanigans, just as the American public wanted.
I'm OK with #1 if they also raise the minimum driving age to 18 (or more precisely threaten the states into doing so like they did originally to get 16) Like how the UK does it (IIRC). To put it simply, 95% of 16-17 y.o. do not need to drive, and (IIRC) there was thing thing they did in NJ that proved that the number crashes went down when drivers started at 18. Obviously with some sort of grandfathering.
I doubt it will be as bad as what's happening in oz though
the government here is basically dismantling everything the country has been working towards since its inception until the next election
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the founding fathers built our government the way we did. It's effectively impossible to get anything major done, ever. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
See... this is why we can't have honest debates... especially regarding Obamacare...
In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Translation: It's okay that we lied to you about this... because we know how to run your life better than you do.
I doubt it will be as bad as what's happening in oz though
the government here is basically dismantling everything the country has been working towards since its inception until the next election
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the founding fathers built our government the way we did. It's effectively impossible to get anything major done, ever. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
The difference is, the founding fathers actually understand the meaning of the word compromise, and were able to do so.
He admits in that clip that the text of Obamacare was deliberately written in a "tortured" way to conceal the fact that the mandate was in fact a tax, because if it were perceived (accurately) as a tax, the American public would not have abided it.
He also admits the law was written in order to hide from the public the fact that the whole point of Obamacare is a forced subsidy from the healthy to the sick... ie a tax.
He's obviously proud of this. He says that given the choice between transparency and no Obamacare, on one hand, and deception and Obamacare, on the other, he'd choose the latter every time.
Translation AGAIN: It's okay that we lied to you about this... because we know how to run your life better than you do.
EDIT: I just saw this:
The original video that contained Gruber’s comments was deleted from YouTube on Monday morning.
Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. http://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb
He admits in that clip that the text of Obamacare was deliberately written in a "tortured" way to conceal the fact that the mandate was in fact a tax, because if it were perceived (accurately) as a tax, the American public would not have abided it.
No he doesn't.
He does say that the bill was written in a "tortured" way so that CBO wouldn't "...score the mandate as taxes...", and that if CBO did score the mandate as a tax the bill would die. I know it may be shocking, but perception is important in politics, and admitting as much is not bad.
He also admits the law was written in order to hide from the public the fact that the whole point of Obamacare is a forced subsidy from the healthy to the sick... ie a tax.
No, that isn't at all what was said. He said that a law explicitly requiring healthy people to subsidize the sick would not have passed.
He's obviously proud of this. He says that given the choice between transparency and no Obamacare, on one hand, and deception and Obamacare, on the other, he'd choose the latter every time.
No he isn't, he explicitly states that it is a "...second best argument..." while expressing a preference for his fellow panelist's opinion; whatever that may be.
Dude... how do you NOT get dizzy from all this spin?
He admitted that "the stupid American public" has to be lied to in order to get them to do the "progressive" right thing.
And he's proud of lying to the public in this way! At least he provided one of the most honest assessment of the process that produced the bill he both helped create and advocated.
Look, I know nothing I can type here will make you think that the tax payer's money is being put to good use; you've already made up your mind that every federal agency is the devil. Let me put it to you this way. Education is currently massively underfunded by states across the country. Some states like Kansas and Oklahoma think it's a better idea to give rich people tax breaks than fund the education of their children which is why Oklahoma has cut education spending 23% since 2008 and teachers in the state are the lowest paid in the region. So, yeah, leave it all up to states, I'm sure they'll make great decisions on education. Meanwhile, US students continue to perform poorly compared to their peers in other countries with national education systems and proper supportive educational mechanisms. I've taught in the US, Japan and S. Korea and I bet you can guess which two countries had the better educational systems and adequate funding for schools....a hint is that neither begins with a "U". You can compare education to the US of 200 years ago or even 50 years ago all you like but every other country has progressed since then, why shouldn't we? Oh, conservative values, yeah, those will really make our work force more competitive in a global market... Federal education funding has been around since the ESEA was first founded under Johnson's War on Poverty in 1965.
The states seem to be really good at funding education, huh?
Local and state governments are much more responsive to the will of the people and cognizant of the actual conditions in the school system. The state legislature, governor, school boards, school superintendents, principals, PTAs, etc. are all much better suited to determine the needs of the schools than the federal govt. Do you really think that Congress, collectively, has a better grasp on what should be happening inside public schools in Oklahoma than Oklahomans? The students and faculty in public schools in Okla are only known to Congress in the aggregate, as nameless, faceless statistics. You get one vote for your congressional rep who is outnumbered by the rest of the Okla delegation and that delegation is outnumbered by delegations from larger states like California. You are of little importance to your representative who is in turn of little importance in regards to how federal education money is doled out. Why would you want people thousands of miles away who don't know you, your kids, or your schools interfering with how they are run?
You're right the DoE is only about 4% of the federal budget, which strengthens my point that it's a waste of time and money. The federal govt is only spending 4% of their budget on the DoE and only a fraction of that 4% is spent on K-12 education. I could be wrong but I believe they spend a bulk fo their funding on student loans for college (parting the cart before the horse but hey, that's govt). And that fraction of 4% that's spent on K-12 education is dispersed to all 50 states so Okla is getting a fraction of a fraction of 4%. Clearly Congress really cares about Okla public schools (sarcasm). Is the money that does flow from the federal govt to K-12 public schools in Okla targeted in such a way as to maximize the benefit to students' learning? No, because it literally takes an Act of Congress to authorize the funding and specify how it's spent so you only get big one size fits all solutions even if in some (or most or all) instances they're not very beneficial at all because that's what you can get past a vote in Congress. That doesn't strike me as a good recipe for fixing schools.
You don't have to convince me that states aren't great at allocating education spending. My sister in law teaches special ed in a public school here in NC, she's woefully underpaid, I know I see her W-2s when I help her file her taxes. There's only two must have ingredients for schools, teachers and buildings and somehow the state manages to fail to priortize either in a budget. And this isn't a politcal party issue, both parties are more devoted to pandering than problem solving. A few years ago the state passed legislation so they could run a lottery for the benefit of schools, it's even officially called the Education Lottery. The state spends millions of dollars on marketing, adminstration and prize money so that about $0.25 of every dollar can be split up amongst various education and other funds. So to get a ludicrous amount of like $0.05 of every dollar for school refurbishment or new construction the state spends millions and only people dumb enough to buy lottery tickets have to foot the bill. It would make so much more sense to just take $5 from everybody who files a state income tax return every year for 5 years and have a nice pile of money to spend on fixing up existing school buildings or constructing new ones. Then in another decade or two when they're due for another facelift collect another short term specific tax. That seems smarter than spending millions trying to entice people to gamble their money away so that schools can earn pennies from every dollar.
Even with all that I still want education budgets to be controlled on the local and state level. That's where people can have an impact. My wife volunteers to help in class at our kids' school, we buy stuff for the class that's on the teacher's wish list, we participate in school fundraisers, we vote in every election and do our best to be informed in local races and we've made friends with the parents of our kids' friends and the only time we really discuss politics with them is when it's regarding our kids and their education which is something we all care about. It's much easier for me to inform other parents about school board elections, county elections, state legislator elections etc. Most of the time they're not terribly well informed themselves so all I need to do is say Well I'm voting for X because... and that gives them a reason to pick a name out on the ballot and that's really all the encouragement they need. It's much harder to have an impact on a federal campaign and it's much harder for anyone I send to Congress to have much of an impact.
I think we likely agree on a lot of the problems hampering public schools and our primary differences lie in the solutions we believe in. I care about my kids and their schools that's why I don't wand Congress messing with them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.
Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.
I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!
Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.
To be fair, that's a result of No Child Left Behind, that concept didn't exist under previous iterations of the ESEA.
No Child Left Behind is a new creation yes, but it's the perfect illustration of how the Feds screw up their "help." Parents want better schools for their kids, so in order to tap into that issue to help win elections, politicians come up with programs like NCLB. Parents want to know their kids are getting a good education so politicians offer to help them out by tying annual standardized testing to federal school funds. That lets politicians use the federal funding as an enticement to keep voters sending them back to DC and it lets parents push off the burden of taking the time and effort of being actively involved with their kids' school to Congress and belive that their kids are getting the education they need as long as enough students are passing their annual tests. Since funding is tied to performance teachers need to teach to the test to help kids pass. Instead of teaching the lesson plans they want they need to carve out time for test prep. This leads to politicians dictating class time activities rather than the professional educators who have spent years learning various methodologies and practices to make teaching effective and learning enjoyable. It also puts young children in the position of having to spend hours sitting in silence filling out multiple choice tests that cover months of lessons which is stressful, not a particularly accurate way to gauge student retention and teacher performance and has the effect of reducing the funding for schools that struggle the most which makes it harder to improve results in following years. To tie funding to test performance but not have a voucher system to allow parents to remove kids from failing schools is just cruel, if the govt is going to label a school as bad why should parents have to send their kids there? How can a bad school attract good teachers to help improve performance? That's the kind of gak that Congress does when it tries to "solve" problems that it is inherently incapable of solving.
He admitted that "the stupid American public" has to be lied to in order to get them to do the "progressive" right thing.
Why are you presenting "stupid American public" as something Gruber said?
In the first Gruber youtube video posted Gruber clearly states that lack of transparency helps Congress pass legislation and that lack of transparency can also be called "the stupidity of the American public" he says it during the 30-37 second mark of the video. Now, IMHO, it would have been more truthful for him phrase it as the ignorance of the American public rather than the stupidity, it's not a matter of intelligence it's a matter of what is known vs unknown. Gruber clearly states that it's easy to pass legislation that does specific things that would be unpopular with the American people if you make sure that the American people are kept from knowing about the the unpopular functions of the legislation. That's an obvious endorsement of politicians deliberately deceiving the electorate to gain their misguided support.
whembly wrote: Translation AGAIN: It's okay that we lied to you about this... because we know how to run your life better than you do.
Sorry, you pushed one of my berzerk buttons, I'm going to have to rant now. Before I start I'll just mention that I don't think the lying to the public part is defensible, so please don't claim that's what I'm saying.
Why is it so damn inconceivable that the public might not know what is best for themselves? We regularly laugh at anti-vaccine people at this forum for disagreeing with with the medical consensus, but somehow the idea that someone might know something about you that you don't is dismissed without an explanation, as though it'd be self-explanatory why that isn't the case. in my experience, it's often seen (although not here on Dakka) as "are you suggesting that I don't know what's best for my child?!?!?!!" or something similar and it absolutely drives me nuts. It doesn't matter how awesome you think you are or how well you "know yourself", a doctor is with almost certainly going to be a LOT better at saving you from HIV-ebola-flu than you yourself are (assuming you're not a doctor yourself). Dismissing the notion that someone else might know better than you out of hand is sloppy and isn't actually backed up by anything other than zealous individualism and extreme anti-authoritarianism.
whembly wrote: Translation AGAIN: It's okay that we lied to you about this... because we know how to run your life better than you do.
Sorry, you pushed one of my berzerk buttons, I'm going to have to rant now. Before I start I'll just mention that I don't think the lying to the public part is defensible, so please don't claim that's what I'm saying.
Understood.
Why is it so damn inconceivable that the public might not know what is best for themselves?
Because we shouldn't always TRUST the gubmint!
We regularly laugh at anti-vaccine people at this forum for disagreeing with with the medical consensus, but somehow the idea that someone might know something about you that you don't is dismissed without an explanation, as though it'd be self-explanatory why that isn't the case. in my experience, it's often seen (although not here on Dakka) as "are you suggesting that I don't know what's best for my child?!?!?!!" or something similar and it absolutely drives me nuts. It doesn't matter how awesome you think you are or how well you "know yourself", a doctor is with almost certainly going to be a LOT better at saving you from HIV-ebola-flu than you yourself are (assuming you're not a doctor yourself). Dismissing the notion that someone else might know better than you out of hand is sloppy and isn't actually backed up by anything other than zealous individualism and extreme anti-authoritarianism.
fething government entities DON'T know what's best for MY healthcare.
In the first Gruber youtube video posted Gruber clearly states that lack of transparency helps Congress pass legislation and that lack of transparency can also be called "the stupidity of the American public" he says it during the 30-37 second mark of the video.
No, Gruber never equates the absence of transparency with "...the stupidity of the American voter...". He states the latter may have been critical to the passage of the bill, but that's it.
Reality check - you're trying to have an honest discussion with someone who believes Obama was not lying when he said "If you like your plan you can keep it" and "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" after the bill was written and made these two statements false.
In the first Gruber youtube video posted Gruber clearly states that lack of transparency helps Congress pass legislation and that lack of transparency can also be called "the stupidity of the American public" he says it during the 30-37 second mark of the video.
No, Gruber never equates the absence of transparency with "...the stupidity of the American voter...". He states the latter may have been critical to the passage of the bill, but that's it.
Here are Gruber's exact words, verbatim:
"lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting it passed"
Gruber equates lack of transparency in the presentation of legislation to the stupidity of the American voter, to him they are synoonymous. Obsfuscating the content of legislation means keeping the electorate stupid.
Reality check - you're trying to have an honest discussion with someone who believes Obama was not lying when he said "If you like your plan you can keep it" and "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" after the bill was written and made these two statements false.
The bill was not finalized until early 2010, and didn't pass until March of that year. The majority of the "If you like your plan you can keep it." quotes are from 2009, same for "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.". I found one from January of 2010, but 2 months is a long time in politics.
Reality check - you're trying to have an honest discussion with someone who believes Obama was not lying when he said "If you like your plan you can keep it" and "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" after the bill was written and made these two statements false.
The bill was not finalized until early 2010, and didn't pass until March of that year. The majority of the "If you like your plan you can keep it." quotes are from 2009, same for "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.". I found one from January of 2010, but 2 months is a long time in politics.
How does that make any difference? Obama went out and campaigned in person and on national televison and radio promoting the ACA and making the claim repeatedly that if it passed people could keep their plans and their doctors if they choose. He then signed into law a version of the ACA that allowed people to do neither. Either Obama was too irresponsible and incompetent to know what the bill he was signing into law actually said or he knew that the ACA didn't do what he had told people it would do and was too irresponsible, incompetent or cowardly to tell the American people the truth before he signed it into law. Unless your position is that POTUS doesn't have any obligation to be honest with the American people and/or that POTUS has no obligation to know what's in the bills that are signed into law I don't see how you could possibly be ok with what Obama did.
Gruber equates lack of transparency in the presentation of legislation to the stupidity of the American voter, to him they are synoonymous. Obsfuscating the content of legislation means keeping the electorate stupid.
No he doesn't. At worst he is making a comment about taking advantage of the stupidity of the American voter, which has nothing to do with equation or synonymy.
Gruber equates lack of transparency in the presentation of legislation to the stupidity of the American voter, to him they are synoonymous. Obsfuscating the content of legislation means keeping the electorate stupid.
No he doesn't. At worst he is making a comment about taking advantage of the stupidity of the American voter, which has nothing to do with equation or synonymy.
Listen to what he said, I even typed it out for you verbatim, here I'll do it again:
"lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting it passed"
When Gruber states "call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever" what does he mean by "it" because I can't see how you can read that statement and not have it be clear that the "it" refers to the lack of transparency. He is clearly saying that you can also call a lack of transparency the stupidity of the American voter.
How does that make any difference? Obama went out and campaigned in person and on national televison and radio promoting the ACA and making the claim repeatedly that if it passed people could keep their plans and their doctors if they choose. He then signed into law a version of the ACA that allowed people to do neither.
PPACA went through many revisions during the legislative process, so what someone said in the year before its passage has no necessary bearing on the content of the final law. As such, calling that person a liar is a stretch at best.
Either Obama was too irresponsible and incompetent to know what the bill he was signing into law actually said or he knew that the ACA didn't do what he had told people it would do and was too irresponsible, incompetent or cowardly to tell the American people the truth before he signed it into law.
False choice. Obama may well have thought the bill he was signing into law was the best of a series of bad options, while also expecting the American people to have paid attention to a very high profile piece of legislation.
When Gruber states "call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever" what does he mean by "it" because I can't see how you can read that statement and not have it be clear that the "it" refers to the lack of transparency. He is clearly saying that you can also call a lack of transparency the stupidity of the American voter.
I suspect "it" refers to whatever the initial topic of conversation was. Something which was conveniently omitted.
When Gruber states "call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever" what does he mean by "it" because I can't see how you can read that statement and not have it be clear that the "it" refers to the lack of transparency. He is clearly saying that you can also call a lack of transparency the stupidity of the American voter.
I suspect "it" refers to whatever the initial topic of conversation was. Something which was conveniently omitted.
If you watch the youtube video by the time Gruber makes the statement I've quoted verbatim for you twice now, he is clearly speaking about lack of transparency in the presentation of the ACA.
Is your position that POTUS, be it Obama or anyone past or future in the office, should feel no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to clearly inform the American people about the content of a bill before signing it into law? It appears that your position is that politicians should do whatever they like in regards to passing legislation, make no effort to properly inform the electorate they represent and that the onus of knowing what is going on legislatively in Congress is completely on the American people.
If you watch the youtube video by the time Gruber makes the statement I've quoted verbatim for you twice now, he is clearly speaking about lack of transparency in the presentation of the ACA.
I've watched the video, a few times, and read your transcriptions. I simply disagree for the reasons I have repeatedly mentioned.
Is your position that POTUS, be it Obama or anyone past or future in the office, should feel no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to clearly inform the American people about the content of a bill before signing it into law?
No. And Presidents generally do inform the American people regarding the content of a bill they are about to sign. The American people don't usually pay attention, but that's on them.
It appears that your position is that politicians should do whatever they like in regards to passing legislation, make no effort to properly inform the electorate they represent and that the onus of knowing what is going on legislatively in Congress is completely on the American people.
Not completely, though it is an American tradition to pawn off the failings of the populace on to politicians.
whembly wrote: government entities DON'T know what's best for MY healthcare.
Simple as that.
Don't worry. I'm sure huge Healthcare companies do though amirite?
Should people not take medicine because it's produced by big Pharma, clearly companies that only exist to make huge profits? Should people not go to hospitals or doctors in insurance networks because clearly those businesses just want to soak us for profits too? Do politicans know how to run hospitals better than the doctors and administrators who are currently running them? Do politicians know better than doctors and insurance companies who to properly bill for medical services?
Should people in the industry who have a proven record of successful experience in their field not play a role in determining the best way for the govt to regulate that industry? Should we just trust the politicians to arbitrarily set parameters on industries they have zero experience in? If we want politicians to make good informed decisions regarding policies and regulations from whom should they be receiving their advice?
Big Govt is a Big Business and Big Business has always steered Big Govt.
whembly wrote: government entities DON'T know what's best for MY healthcare.
Simple as that.
Don't worry. I'm sure huge Healthcare companies do though amirite?
Better than the Government... yes.
We have allowed the bureaucrats and apparatchiks to issue medical pricing from their ivory towers for many years now...
All leading to the irrationally priced disaster we know as the U.S. health care system.
The high price of health care represents no failure of the free market, but rather an absence of market discipline.
'Tis why, the first, simplistic goal to reform this industry is to provide transparent pricing at all stages. From there... true reform can only be achieved.
Is your position that POTUS, be it Obama or anyone past or future in the office, should feel no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to clearly inform the American people about the content of a bill before signing it into law?
No. And Presidents generally do inform the American people regarding the content of a bill they are about to sign. The American people don't usually pay attention, but that's on them.
When did Obama go on the campaign trail and on televison and radio to tell the American people what was in the bill he actually signed? He did plenty of public campaigning for the bill that wasn't what he signed. Did he not owe it to the American people to clarify the differences in what he first claimed would be in the bill and what was in the final version?
It appears that your position is that politicians should do whatever they like in regards to passing legislation, make no effort to properly inform the electorate they represent and that the onus of knowing what is going on legislatively in Congress is completely on the American people.
Not completely, though it is an American tradition to pawn off the failings of the populace on to politicians.
Do the politicians not have failings? Is it your opinion that politicians have the moral right to decide what is best for the people without ever consulting with the people they represent or explaining their actions to them?
Prestor Jon wrote: Is it your opinion that politicians have the moral right to decide what is best for the people without ever consulting with the people they represent or explaining their actions to them?
I don't know about the morality, but it's pretty inarguable that in fact our system of government is set up in a way that in fact actual legislating is delegated to representatives to whom we trust to serve our best interests, and for which we either reward or punish them at the polls with how well we decided they have served those interests, or at least legislated as they promised they would. Otherwise everything would be a ballot measure, and would inevitably lead to something the founders pretty explicitly feared - the tyranny of the majority.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is it your opinion that politicians have the moral right to decide what is best for the people without ever consulting with the people they represent or explaining their actions to them?
It seems you do not understand what a republic is.
When did Obama go on the campaign trail and on televison and radio to tell the American people what was in the bill he actually signed? He did plenty of public campaigning for the bill that wasn't what he signed. Did he not owe it to the American people to clarify the differences in what he first claimed would be in the bill and what was in the final version?
No, anyone that wasn't already engaged by the content of PPACA wouldn't have cared.
Do the politicians not have failings? Is it your opinion that politicians have the moral right to decide what is best for the people without ever consulting with the people they represent or explaining their actions to them?
Politicians already do that, its called campaigning within a representative democracy.
It's the fact that Dr. Gruber thinks it’s OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants... but the voters wouldn’t. He then says American voters are “stupid” both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.
I think this tactic is repulsive and unethical in a representative democracy.
whembly wrote: It's the fact that Dr. Gruber thinks it’s OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants... but the voters wouldn’t.
The last few pages have centered on whether or not Gruber lied, so proceeding from the assumption that he did ignores the matter at hand.
He then says American voters are “stupid” both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.
When does he say that American voters are stupid for not agreeing with his value choices? I mean, I can see the deception argument (though I don't agree with it) but "value choices"?
whembly wrote: government entities DON'T know what's best for MY healthcare.
Simple as that.
Don't worry. I'm sure huge Healthcare companies do though amirite?
Better than the Government... yes.
We have allowed the bureaucrats and apparatchiks to issue medical pricing from their ivory towers for many years now...
All leading to the irrationally priced disaster we know as the U.S. health care system.
The high price of health care represents no failure of the free market, but rather an absence of market discipline.
'Tis why, the first, simplistic goal to reform this industry is to provide transparent pricing at all stages. From there... true reform can only be achieved.
So, how is that all Governments fault and not the Companies that "run" the market for Healthcare again? How have they proved that they can handle it again?
However, I do completely and 100% agree with the transparent pricing point. That is par tof the reason why Consumer Directed Healthplans such as HRA and HSA are a huge joke to me. The idea was consumers putting their own money on the line would find the best deal. Too bad the actual pricing is locked under NDAs and Business Secrets legislation so the consumer will hav eno idea what the final cost will be.
whembly wrote: government entities DON'T know what's best for MY healthcare.
Simple as that.
Don't worry. I'm sure huge Healthcare companies do though amirite?
Better than the Government... yes.
We have allowed the bureaucrats and apparatchiks to issue medical pricing from their ivory towers for many years now...
All leading to the irrationally priced disaster we know as the U.S. health care system.
The high price of health care represents no failure of the free market, but rather an absence of market discipline.
'Tis why, the first, simplistic goal to reform this industry is to provide transparent pricing at all stages. From there... true reform can only be achieved.
So, how is that all Governments fault and not the Companies that "run" the market for Healthcare again? How have they proved that they can handle it again?
It's mostly government's fault as it dictates the environment.
Don't be surprise that in the next few years, Hospital/Healthcare entities band together in offering their own insurance, simply to cut out the middleman (3rd party insurance / government). Huge savings can be realized in that environment.
Before that can happen, it needs to be "state boundary" agnostic so that the risk pools are diversified enough.
Don't be surprise that in the next few years, Hospital/Healthcare entities band together in offering their own insurance, simply to cut out the middleman (3rd party insurance / government). Huge savings can be realized in that environment.
Hospitals and healthcare entities are not comparable, and the latter already contracted with insurance companies by way of HMOs and PPOs prior to PPACA.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is it your opinion that politicians have the moral right to decide what is best for the people without ever consulting with the people they represent or explaining their actions to them?
It seems you do not understand what a republic is.
I know full well how our representative republic works. The fact that we send representatives to DC to govern on our behalf is precisely why they are obligated to tell us what they are doing. We don't elect them so that they can ignore us for 2 or 6 years until they're up for re-election. They vote Yea or Nay on my behalf, I don't get to tell them how to vote but they do have a responsibility to publicize the votes they cast and the content of the bills they vote on. Republics need transparency to work, people need to know what's going on in their government if they are to determine if their representatives are governing well. Lying to constituents, obfuscating the truth and keeping the content of legislation a secret has no place in our system of government. Where in the constitution do you find anything that suggests that the people are supposed to be kept ignorant of the actions of their government?
They vote Yea or Nay on my behalf, I don't get to tell them how to vote but they do have a responsibility to publicize the votes they cast and the content of the bills they vote on.
Politicians do publicize the votes they cast (this is what a voting record is), and the content of the bills they approve of.
Don't be surprise that in the next few years, Hospital/Healthcare entities band together in offering their own insurance, simply to cut out the middleman (3rd party insurance / government). Huge savings can be realized in that environment.
Hospitals and healthcare entities are not comparable, and the latter already contracted with insurance companies by way of HMOs and PPOs prior to PPACA.
Stop. That's not what I was saying.
Read this.
There are rumblings within the Hospital/Healthcare industry (ie, actual hospitals, Dr offices, ancillary services, etc...) to form a collective group to participate in offering their own "insurance-type" program.
So, instead of paying out to Blue Cross/Blue Shields or United Healthcare... you'd pay directly to something like the Mayo Clinic Health System and use their facilities.
They vote Yea or Nay on my behalf, I don't get to tell them how to vote but they do have a responsibility to publicize the votes they cast and the content of the bills they vote on.
Politicians do publicize the votes they cast, and the content of the bills they approve.
You can choose to ignore your politicians if you want to but an informed electorate cannot be ignorant of the process of governing.
Politicians also lie and obfuscate the votes they cast and the content of the bills they approve.
Politicians have a responsibility to not be ignorant of the subject matter the bills they vote on concern, accurately represent the content of the bills they propose and vote on to their constituents, know the content of the bills they vote on and vote in accordance with the best interests of their constituents.
There are rumblings within the Hospital/Healthcare industry (ie, actual hospitals, Dr offices, ancillary services, etc...) to form a collective group to participate in offering their own "insurance-type" program.
So, instead of paying out to Blue Cross/Blue Shields or United Healthcare... you'd pay directly to something like the Mayo Clinic Health System and use their facilities.
There are rumblings within the Hospital/Healthcare industry (ie, actual hospitals, Dr offices, ancillary services, etc...) to form a collective group to participate in offering their own "insurance-type" program.
So, instead of paying out to Blue Cross/Blue Shields or United Healthcare... you'd pay directly to something like the Mayo Clinic Health System and use their facilities.
Like existential HMOs and PPOs?
Somewhat... but, think more on regional scale where various organizations collaborate on this endeavour.
You can choose to ignore your politicians if you want to but an informed electorate cannot be ignorant of the process of governing.
I never said that I ignore my politicians.I said that we, referring to Americans, elect politicians so that they can ignore us; also referring to Americans.
Politicians have a responsibility to not be ignorant of the subject matter the bills they vote on concern, accurately represent the content of the bills they propose and vote on to their constituents, know the content of the bills they vote on and vote in accordance with the best interests of their constituents.
Obama did all of those things, to the best of his ability.
Politicians have a responsibility to not be ignorant of the subject matter the bills they vote on concern, accurately represent the content of the bills they propose and vote on to their constituents, know the content of the bills they vote on and vote in accordance with the best interests of their constituents.
Obama did all of those things, to the best of his ability.
Sure...
But, he's been weighed, measured and found wanting.
Wat: You have been weighed.
Roland: You have been measured.
Kate: And you have absolutely...
Chaucer: Been found wanting.
You can choose to ignore your politicians if you want to but an informed electorate cannot be ignorant of the process of governing.
I never said that I ignore my politicians.I said that we, referring to Americans, elect politicians so that they can ignore us; also referring to Americans.
Politicians have a responsibility to not be ignorant of the subject matter the bills they vote on concern, accurately represent the content of the bills they propose and vote on to their constituents, know the content of the bills they vote on and vote in accordance with the best interests of their constituents.
Obama did all of those things, to the best of his ability.
Our politicians are supposed to govern on our behalf and represent our interests. I'm curious to know how you think they can do that while pretending we don't exist.
Obama spent millions of dollars across all forms of media to champion his ideal version A of the ACA and then went silent when the legislation eventually evolved into version D that directly contradicted his previous statements about the legislation. That's not informing the American people about the most important piece of legislation in your governing agenda to the best of his ability. Please show me one instance of Obama calling a press conference to tell the media and the public exactly what was in the ACA that he signed into law.
You can choose to ignore your politicians if you want to but an informed electorate cannot be ignorant of the process of governing.
I never said that I ignore my politicians.I said that we, referring to Americans, elect politicians so that they can ignore us; also referring to Americans.
Politicians have a responsibility to not be ignorant of the subject matter the bills they vote on concern, accurately represent the content of the bills they propose and vote on to their constituents, know the content of the bills they vote on and vote in accordance with the best interests of their constituents.
Obama did all of those things, to the best of his ability.
Our politicians are supposed to govern on our behalf and represent our interests. I'm curious to know how you think they can do that while pretending we don't exist.
Obama spent millions of dollars across all forms of media to champion his ideal version A of the ACA and then went silent when the legislation eventually evolved into version D that directly contradicted his previous statements about the legislation. That's not informing the American people about the most important piece of legislation in your governing agenda to the best of his ability. Please show me one instance of Obama calling a press conference to tell the media and the public exactly what was in the ACA that he signed into law.
You do realize that the ACA is 900 odd pages right? With lots of details that the average Joe either won't understand or doesn't care about anyway.
Edit: Obama did actually talk about ACA for some 47m to congress in 2009. linkjust the text Did he go into complete detail on the 900 odd page law? No, but that would have taken well more than 47m and would have lead to everyone in the room falling asleep after an hour or so. Did he make promises he didn't keep? Of course, but then again situations evolve and every politician makes promises they never keep.
Note this speech was on September 9th 2009, and law was signed march 2010. So the president was laying out his plan and trying to explain it before the law was done.
Somewhat... but, think more on regional scale where various organizations collaborate on this endeavour.
Like DuPage Medical Group, which collaborates with numerous service and insurance providers?
No.
Hypothetically, it'd be more like, DuPage would create partnerships with other regional service providers (ie, MRI offices, orthapedic outpatient surgery, etc...) and call it the "DuPage Partnerships™". Patients would pay DuPage Partnerships™ and use the facilities under that structure.
Not really all that different from the patient's perspective (except, potentially realizing cost savings)... but, the legal environment I don't believe can support that model right now.
Our politicians are supposed to govern on our behalf and represent our interests. I'm curious to know how you think they can do that while pretending we don't exist.
Politicians know people exist, that's why polling is such a lucrative industry.
Hypothetically, it'd be more like, DuPage would create partnerships with other regional service providers (ie, MRI offices, orthapedic outpatient surgery, etc...) and call it the "DuPage Partnerships™". Patients would pay DuPage Partnerships™ and use the facilities under that structure.
Goes to show how ridiculous Pelosi's "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" really is...
Sorry dude you fell for an easy republican trick. The actual law is only 906 pages, but people get confused as this article points out. link
So where did the 2,400-page number come from? The Affordable Care Act, as you’ll recall, was the subject of much debate and alternation in Congress during Obama’s first year in office. One early version of the bill (that’s the bill, not the law) -- known as House Resolution 3590, as amended by the Senate -- ran to 2,076 pages. A subsequent version of this bill, passed by the U.S. Senate Dec. 24, 2009, was 2,409 pages long. Voila! That’s where the elusive, often-cited figure comes from. So, while it’s not accurate to call the “Obamacare” law 2,400 pages, it is correct to call one version of the bill 2,400 pages. Confusing, I know.
Please show me one instance of Obama calling a press conference to tell the media and the public exactly what was in the ACA that he signed into law.
I never claimed that he did.
So you admit that Obama never told the public the content of the bill he signed into law but you still claim that he informed the public of the content of that bill
to the best of his ability
? If you go to great lengths to tell the American people that a piece of legislation is going to do X but then the final version doesn't do X but instead does Y and you deliberately avoid telling people about the change, that is both dishonest and irresponsible.
Goes to show how ridiculous Pelosi's "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" really is...
Sorry dude you fell for an easy republican trick. The actual law is only 906 pages, but people get confused as this article points out. link
So where did the 2,400-page number come from? The Affordable Care Act, as you’ll recall, was the subject of much debate and alternation in Congress during Obama’s first year in office. One early version of the bill (that’s the bill, not the law) -- known as House Resolution 3590, as amended by the Senate -- ran to 2,076 pages. A subsequent version of this bill, passed by the U.S. Senate Dec. 24, 2009, was 2,409 pages long. Voila! That’s where the elusive, often-cited figure comes from. So, while it’s not accurate to call the “Obamacare” law 2,400 pages, it is correct to call one version of the bill 2,400 pages. Confusing, I know.
You forgot the additional regulations needing to implement the law.
Still a clusterfeth.
Fair, but those are not part of the law but "supplements". Kinda like how some games have a core rulebook and then a lot of supplements after the game has been out for awhile.
This video appears to be from a lecture Gruber gave at Washington University in St. Louis in October of last year, entitled “Cost of Health Care.”Gruber’s remarks can be heard around the 31-minute mark of the University’s video of the event saying that a part of the Obamacare passed because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
It's a long video and I only watched it once last night...
Something to the effect how the drafters (ie, the Democrats) crafted the language of the PPACAlaw so that it achieved their goals, by fooling the public
It's a long video and I only watched it once last night...
Something to the effect how the drafters (ie, the Democrats) crafted the language of the PPACAlaw so that it achieved their goals, by fooling the public
I'll have to check that out. I wasn't sure what it ment out of context.
So far the president has been trying to put the Republicans on Defense by advocating for an outside the beltwy AG nominee and now is Climate Change talks. H eis inviting the R's to raise a political ruckus.
Of course, it is all theatre as the new Congress doesn't take office until 2015 IIRC.
It requires 2/3 to convict a President in the Senate.
Barring that it would be fun to defund the Whitehouse.
What they should do?
1. Sue to enforce.
2. Pass a budget massively increasing border security. Pas it as a separate measure. Dare the President not to sign it.
3. Pass something more compreshensive but include #2. Dare the President not to sign it.
4. DOn't get you panties in a wad and move onto other business. This hasn't changed anything.
Easy E wrote: So, how about that supposed immigration related Executive Action eh? What will the Republicans do as the Pres waves a red cape in their face?
What they CAN do is to issue a normal Budget (w/o DHS funding).
Then, pass a specific budget for DHS expressly forbidding Obama from issuing executive amnesty.
If Obama vetos that... then, only essential people/functions will be funded. NEW immigration/amnesty functions will be defunct due to lack of funding.
So you admit that Obama never told the public the content of the bill he signed into law but you still claim that he informed the public of the content of that bill
to the best of his ability
?
I admit Obama never recited it verbatim, as no politician ever has with respect to any legislation.
I mean, really, would you listen to Obama reciting legislation? I certainly wouldn't. Especially not given that the proposed legislation was freely available in textual format prior to its passage.
So you admit that Obama never told the public the content of the bill he signed into law but you still claim that he informed the public of the content of that bill
to the best of his ability
?
I admit Obama never recited it verbatim, as no politician ever has with respect to any legislation.
I mean, really, would you listen to Obama reciting legislation? I certainly wouldn't. Especially not given that the proposed legislation was freely available in textual format prior to its passage.
So now you're retracting your claim that Obama informed the public of the content of the ACA "to the best of his ability"? Obama went on a massive multi media campaign making specific statements about the ACA that, once a the final version was passed by Congress, became false statements. Obama made no massive multi media effort to explain to the American people that the bill he had previously championed was not the bill he was signing into law. That's a lie of omission and is dishonest behavior.
Obama went on a massive multi media campaign making specific statements about the ACA that, once a the final version was passed by Congress, became false statements. Obama made no massive multi media effort to explain to the American people that the bill he had previously championed was not the bill he was signing into law. That's a lie of omission and is dishonest behavior.
Probably because anyone who cared was paying attention to Congress, rightly, and not Obama.
CNN BREAKING: President Obama will make executive action announcement in prime time address tomorrow
— Vaughn Sterling (@vplus) November 19, 2014
Well then...
In that case, what's stopping a President Walker from issue an EO to prohibit any/all publicfederal union negotiations or President "Generic Republican" from unilaterally ordering the Treasury/IRS to collect no more than 15% of tax revenue?
Easy E wrote: So, how about that supposed immigration related Executive Action eh? What will the Republicans do as the Pres waves a red cape in their face?
What they CAN do is to issue a normal Budget (w/o DHS funding).
Then, pass a specific budget for DHS expressly forbidding Obama from issuing executive amnesty.
If Obama vetos that... then, only essential people/functions will be funded. NEW immigration/amnesty functions will be defunct due to lack of funding.
Virginia's Congress critter who is a conservative Democrat. He was one of the first Dems to break the R's hold on the state. He was also one of hte first Iraq War vets voted into political office.
Virginia's Congress critter who is a conservative Democrat. He was one of the first Dems to break the R's hold ont eh state. He was also one of hte first Iraq War vets voted into political office.
If he is the same guy I am thinking of.
He's a left-leaning centrist Democrat.
I'm still convinced Hillary is running... so... Webb is wasting his time.
Virginia's Congress critter who is a conservative Democrat. He was one of the first Dems to break the R's hold ont eh state. He was also one of hte first Iraq War vets voted into political office.
If he is the same guy I am thinking of.
He's a left-leaning centrist Democrat.
I'm still convinced Hillary is running... so... Webb is wasting his time.
The editor of Breitbart Unmasked, a site that I enjoy immensely and find informative, recently told me that supporting Rand Paul disqualifies a person from being labeled a progressive. My rebuttal was that he might be right. However, I also mentioned that Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia agreed with my latest Congress Blog piece. In the article, I explain why Rand Paul is correct in questioning the legality of President Obama's troop deployments. Sadly, people at UC Berkeley are more interested in protesting Bill Maher than condemning a conflict George McGovern stated weakens our country in the same manner as Vietnam. Hundreds of airstrikes, over 3,000 soldiers deployed, and a request for $5.6 billion is a war, folks.
Had President Mitt Romney just doubled our military presence in the Middle East and launched airstrikes that even the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army have criticized, the reaction would have been entirely different from liberals throughout the country. We once again have over 3,000 American boots on the ground in Iraq (without a peep from the anti-war left), only months after a VA crisis that caused veterans to die as they waited for health care, and about the same time as the publication of this book by an American general. To make matters worse, Congress is too cowardly to even debate the issue, despite calls for a discussion by Rand Paul. In the meantime, our values as a nation have succumb to fear mongering and paranoia.
Since 9/11, we've had to endure ideologues like Sean Hannity, a man who vehemently defends enhanced interrogation, yet is too chicken (insert the next word) to get waterboarded himself; even after promising on television that he would do so for charity. To prove that waterboaring is indeed torture, Christopher Hitchens actually did get waterboarded, yet the thought of nearly drowning apparently terrifies Fox's tough, football throwing host. Even petitions calling for Hannity to back up the bravado, or the fact that such interrogation methods endanger U.S. soldiers and besmirch our value system, haven't been enough to alter the conservative view of this un-American tool of statecraft. Alas, only Selsun Blue and unicorn tears, not water being poured onto his smug face wrapped in cloth and gasping for oxygen, will ever grace the Fred Flinstone-like visage of Sean Hannity.
In contrast, Rand Paul has called for the GOP to reject Dick Cheney for defending torture and asserted that Cheney helped launch the Iraq War to profit Halliburton. Only Rand Paul provides a voice for people disgusted by the fear peddlers on Fox, the tepid rebuttals to their madness by leading liberals like Hillary Clinton, and the media driven paranoia that shapes public policy. Today, over 40 percent of Americans favor ground troops in Iraq, just several years removed from the end of a deadly counterinsurgency war. Upholding Obamacare is important, but pales in comparison to the prospect of perpetual American military involvement in the Middle East or the destruction of our value system because of terrorism.
Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.
On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.
I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.
Yes, I'll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he'll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I'm taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I'm not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I'll live with that; I'm not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I'm an American.
1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama's ISIS war illegal and isn't against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago. Try naming even one of the Syrian rebel groups and explaining their differences with ISIS. Furthermore, The Week states that "Clinton's instincts appear to be far more hawkish than Barack Obama's." Imagine a more hawkish Obama and you'll get the next President Clinton. Also, famed neocon Robert Kagan is one of Clinton's advisers and states in The New York Times, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy." That should tell you how liberal Clinton will be on matters of perpetual war in the Middle East.
2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program." In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying. Neither Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nor any other candidate in 2016 has made this a top priority in their campaign. Sen. Paul has also voted against PATRIOT Act Extension bills, voted for an amendment that prohibits detention of U.S. citizens without trial (which of course didn't pass the Senate), and his voting record protects American citizens from politicians paranoid over terrorism. Sen. Paul was vehemently against the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill that passed in 2013, because, "This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you're dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It's an abomination."
3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who've been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don't care about reforming the criminal justice system, and if they do, it's on the bottom of their to do lists, far behind cozying up to Wall Street and increasing America's military presence in the Middle East.
4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended."
5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position. The Wall Street Journal criticized Paul's position on the Snowden matter, and their criticism actually makes me like Rand Paul in 2016 even more. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is "puzzled" why Snowden would want to leave the U.S. and feels he might have helped terrorists with his disclosures.
6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up. I don't want to get blown up eating a burrito at Chipotle because I visited Egypt to see the pyramids and happened to sit in a café frequented by a terrorist. In 2013, Rand Paul asked Eric Holder whether or not American citizens could be targeted by drones on American soil. Jon Stewart has a great segment about this. Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn't frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter. Issues like drone strikes on American soil, against Americans, is why I don't believe in conspiracy theories. This sort of thing is being discussed today in plain sight, yet only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens. If it's not an ISIL beheading video, nobody seems to care nowadays.
7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another. This alone would solve some of the gridlock in Washington. Paul has worked with 7 leading Democrats on a number of issues; working on everything from judicial reform, NSA surveillance, the limits of presidential authority to launch strikes in Iraq, and other issues. Imagine Ted Cruz reaching out to Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has worked to emulate this picture.
8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn't want to dismantle Social Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, "I'm for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can't help themselves." I don't ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism.
9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right.
10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation. We're stuck with a GOP who thinks the globe is one giant Stratego board game with God helping roll the dice, a Democratic Party more focused on defending Obamacare than stopping endless wars or protecting civil liberties, and a populace that cares more about beheading videos than the erosion of rights or the welfare of our warriors. Is Paul the answer? I'm not certain. But compared to Hillary and Jeb Bush, I'll take the man who stated, "I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East."
If Rand Paul picks Mike Huckabee as his running mate, I'll "evolve" towards Hillary. However, if Rand Paul picks someone reasonable who possesses his value system, I'll take my chances. President Rand Paul will be a nice change from Bush 2.0, Bush in a pantsuit, and especially Bush's brother. In 2016, I want someone who can protect us from ourselves and protect us from the media/terrorist driven fear that keeps America in endless war and allows attorney generals to rationalize a drone strike on American soil. Paul was also the first 2016 contender to visit Ferguson, and for some reason I just can't imagine Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush taking a moment to find out why Ferguson took place, and what steps are needed to solve that intractable situation.
Virginia's Congress critter who is a conservative Democrat. He was one of the first Dems to break the R's hold ont eh state. He was also one of hte first Iraq War vets voted into political office.
If he is the same guy I am thinking of.
He's a left-leaning centrist Democrat.
I'm still convinced Hillary is running... so... Webb is wasting his time.
I suspect he is positioning himself for consideration as a VP choice. If so, he isn't wasting his time.
I still want Biden to run. He is either one of the most fiendishly brilliancy politician of modern time or a doofus, either way it would be entertaining.
The 2014 election cycle comes to a close with Cassidy's lopsided defeat of LA Sen. Mary Landrieu.
With the Republican's gain of nine Senate seats, they will command a healthy 54-46 majority in the upper chamber come January.
Obamacare & "Democrat Fatigue" was truly the albatross in this election...
Such that... many senators who voted for Obamacare lost re-election battles in which they were hit hard for their support for the law and other Democrats were forced to retire because they had no hope of getting re-elected given their support for the law. A total of 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans in '12 & '14.
I'm curious as to what the new congress will do. Will they do the smart thing, work on bipartisan moderate things, making them look good, and make moderate voters more likely to vote for them, or are they going to feth this up again. If they continue the way they are, they are going to have a hard time during the presidential election year, a time the democrats generally do quite well in anyway, and they won't have Obama or his care to back them up. The Republicans would have a pretty good chance in they got rid of most of their social polices, and focused on economics, something they do much better at. With an increase in things like legal same-sex marriage, they could either move with the times and triumph, or fail miserably. I vote solely on social issues myself (knowing nothing about economics) and If the Rs got rid of their reactionary social polices, and ran someone who wasn't a nutjob for pres, I'd actually have to consider who to vote for.
Ron Paul had a lot of really good positions, despite having a general electability problem.
Rand Paul has a lot of really out there positions he's been pretty good about not bringing too much attention to - his dad was a pretty good Libertatian, but he's much more a social conservative pretending to be a libertarian. It's sort of hard to pin down exactly what they are, because even in his really short career he's flip-flopped quite a bit.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm curious as to what the new congress will do. Will they do the smart thing, work on bipartisan moderate things, making them look good, and make moderate voters more likely to vote for them
no
are they going to feth this up again.
Yes.
Why shouldn't they? They realized years ago that most people hate Congress as an institution, so they don't have to worry about bad polling. They also realized that when government doesn't work, people tend to blame the president... so there is plenty of reason to continue what they have been doing. In fact, they were rewarded this past election for doing exactly that!
Co'tor Shas wrote: and focused on economics, something they do much better at.
Why shouldn't they? They realized years ago that most people hate Congress as an institution, so they don't have to worry about bad polling. They also realized that when government doesn't work, people tend to blame the president... so there is plenty of reason to continue what they have been doing. In fact, they were rewarded this past election for doing exactly that!
Yep... everyone thought Cruz was harming the Repubican's over his shutdown theater. Alas, the voters didn't give a feth.
Or, maybe Obama should learn from the past and... you know... try to negotiate?
whembly wrote: [Or, maybe Obama should learn from the past and... you know... try to negotiate?
I think abandoning any attempt at negotiating actually would be learning from the past.
Shortly after President Obama was elected, Senator Mitch McConnell advised that his parties number-one priority was ensuring Obama was a one-term president. The country at the time was in economic catastrophe, we were embroiled in 2 wars, Iran acting feisty, and that's his #1 priority - being a partisan toolbox.
Now that guy is the Senate Majority Leader. Only a fool would think there is any useful negotiation going to be had.
I sure wish he had stuck with that. We'd have the public option right now, instead of dropping in in a bid for the Republican votes that never materialized. You had Chuck Grassley flat out stating that even if everything he wanted went into the ACA, he still wouldn't vote for it - how are you supposed to bargain with that?
Ouze wrote: I sure wish he had stuck with that. We'd have the public option right now, instead of dropping in in a bid for the Republican votes that never materialized. You had Chuck Grassley flat out stating that even if everything he wanted went into the ACA, he still wouldn't vote for it - how are you supposed to bargain with that?
Actually, I'd be interested in the Canadian model.
But, in this case, it wasn't the right time to try a wholesale change. The best outcome is more piecemeal initiatives... (ie, prohibit pre-existing clauses, allow cross state actuaries, etc.)
But, no... we got this ugly thing now.
*shrugs*
Democrats owns it. As such, has suffered consequences.
Shoot... Schumer has publically opined that the Democrats shouldn't have focused on Obamacare in their first years of super-majority.
whembly wrote: [quote=Ouze 580550 7412624 3a11d436572003cc7fc4aa0cb6947bb7.jpg
Yep... everyone thought Cruz was harming the Repubican's over his shutdown theater. Alas, the voters didn't give a feth.
Actually, the voters cared quite a lot about it at the time. Problem is, it happened more than a month before the elections, and you know the attention span of the average American...
It's not last year's scandal that gets remembered, but last week's.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm curious as to what the new congress will do. Will they do the smart thing, work on bipartisan moderate things, making them look good, and make moderate voters more likely to vote for them, or are they going to feth this up again.
Come on doing you really need to ask that question.
Or to quote the immmortal bard: "I think you know how this is going to end don't you."
A total of 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans in '12 & '14.
Tom Harkin is 75, Tim Johnson is 67, Byron Dorgan is 72, Max Baucus is 72, Jay Rockefeller is 77, Ben Nelson is 73, and Roland Burris is 77. I'm guessing age may have been an issue for them.
Counting the bills Congress passes can't tell us whether it did a good job.
A recent article in The Hill described the now-adjourned 113th Congress as "historically unproductive," observing that "few Congresses have sent less bills to a president in 20 years."
This, I'm afraid, reflects a common journalistic belief that when legislatures are passing legislation, they're producing something valuable. But while it's true that when oil wells produce oil, or gold mines gold or automobile factories cars, those entities are being productive, it's not so clear that every time a legislature passes a law it's producing something of value. In fact, there's good reason to suspect just the opposite.
When Congress passes a law, it is pretty much always either limiting someone's freedom or spending taxpayer money. Sometimes those are good things: The civil rights laws of the 1960s took away the freedom to engage in racial discrimination, and the spending of World War II and the Cold War defeated the evils of Nazism and Communism.
Like this column?: Get more delivered
But most congressional action doesn't rise to that level, and much of it — things like pork-barrel projects or bills that protect special interests from competition — is a net loss. Even worse, once legislation is enacted, it becomes very difficult to repeal. That's too bad. Bills that are passed generally limit freedom or spend money; repealing laws generally expands freedom and saves money.
What's more, the accumulation of laws creates a drag on both prosperity and freedom. Jonathan Rauch calls the problem Demosclerosis, in his excellent book of the same name: Special interest laws build up kind of like arterial plaque, eventually choking off freedom. Economist Mancur Olson calls the same phenomenon "the web of special interests." In his book The Rise and Decline of Nations, he suggests that this web will inevitably lead to economic and political stagnation, and can usually only be broken by some sort of catastrophic event, like a lost war or a revolution. Or we could just repeal some of the laws.
But nobody in Congress sees repealing laws as job No. 1. Well maybe one does, but he's not doing such a great job getting it done. Last year, House Speaker John Boehner said, "We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We should be judged on how many laws we repeal."
And for that, at least, I have a proposed solution. It's not really my idea, though I fleshed it out a bit in a law review article and a speech at Harvard Law School a while back. If the problem with Congress is that nobody sees repealing laws as job No. 1, why not create a legislative body that can only repeal laws?
The growth of laws and regulation in America has reached the point that pretty much everyone is a felon, whether they know it or not. But nobody in Congress gets much in the way of votes by repealing laws. All the institutional pressures point the other way.
So in a third house of Congress — let's call it the House of Repeal — the only thing that the elected legislators would have the power to do would be to repeal laws, meaning that for them, all the votes, campaign contributions, media exposure and opportunities for hearings would revolve around paring back the federal behemoth. It's an extension of James Madison's principle (or, possibly, Alexander Hamilton's) enunciated in Federalist No. 51 that, since politicians are always ambitious, in a free society "ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
Though the details, as with all constitutional provisions, matter a lot, the key virtue of a House of Repeal goes beyond the details: The point of its existence would be to give someone in the federal government an incentive to give us less law rather than more. Right now, only the federal judiciary is free from incentives to create additional regulation (though not necessarily free from incentives to create additional legal complexity), but federal judges get no reward for striking laws down. There is no institutional incentive to do so. Yet it seems that things are much more likely to get done in our system if some institution benefits from the doing.
It would take a constitutional amendment to create a third house of Congress, but those happen from time to time — usually when the populace thinks that the existing system is letting them down. Looking around at American politics today, the prospects for constitutional change don't look so bad.
I don't think they used the word "freedom" enough.
That said, I think the idea is more of what lead to the financial crisis in that laws that existed for a reason got repealed because they "limited freedom". Repealing laws is probably not as universally beneficial as the author seems to think.
In the US, "the idea that ignorance of the law is not a defense" assumes that the law is understood. I think it's asinine we're often placed in a situations where we'd have to hire lawyers simply in order to stay a law-abiding citizen.
At the very least, the law should be in plain language. IIRC there actually is a law which says as much, but I don't think people follow that when writing some laws.
Grey Templar wrote: At the very least, the law should be in plain language. IIRC there actually is a law which says as much, but I don't think people follow that when writing some laws.
I thought that was Herman Cain's running platform. That and his "kitchen table law", which basically stated that any new law could only be so long as could be read at the dinner table and discussed by the family.
It's a nice idea in theory, but it's built on the idea that congress has no incentive to repeal laws. The underlying issue is that politicians have no real incentive to do a good job in the first place. Getting voted out of office means nothing when you can promptly get a job as a lobbyist, analyst, commentator, think tank member, etc. As long as they can ride the political gravy train for life, there is no incentive to do better.
Yes, I'm bitter, and I could use a nice single malt right now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's a nice idea in theory, but it's built on the idea that congress has no incentive to repeal laws. The underlying issue is that politicians have no real incentive to do a good job in the first place. Getting voted out of office means nothing when you can promptly get a job as a lobbyist, analyst, commentator, think tank member, etc. As long as they can ride the political gravy train for life, there is no incentive to do better.
Eh... of if there are more political "job openings", ie "The House of Repeals"...
The incentives to do "repeal work" would exists. Or, at least, collaborate with the House/Senate to make better laws.
Yes, I'm bitter, and I could use a nice single malt right now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's a nice idea in theory, but it's built on the idea that congress has no incentive to repeal laws. The underlying issue is that politicians have no real incentive to do a good job in the first place. Getting voted out of office means nothing when you can promptly get a job as a lobbyist, analyst, commentator, think tank member, etc. As long as they can ride the political gravy train for life, there is no incentive to do better.
Don't forget...... once they're in office, they make that monthly paycheck until forever. So, not only are they making House/Senate pay, but they're also making 3-10x as much money as a lobbyist.
The more I look at things, the more I wish we had a system more like Germany's or the UK's (but not completely the UK system, as that would get very aggravating for 'Mericans)
Think Boehner in a fight for position in the House
Anyone know how many Bills are sitting on Reid desk?
Anyone want to guess how many Bills hit Obama desk he Veto's?
Oklahoma has a simple legislative rule in our constitution:
No bill can deal with more than one subject.
They can't write a massive bill dealing with a ton of unrelated stuff. Its a simple rule that would clear up a lot of this "can't pass this bill unless 15 senators stuff it with pet projects" stuff.
Of course out state legislators are unable to follow it...
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma has a simple legislative rule in our constitution:
No bill can deal with more than one subject.
They can't write a massive bill dealing with a ton of unrelated stuff. Its a simple rule that would clear up a lot of this "can't pass this bill unless 15 senators stuff it with pet projects" stuff.
Of course out state legislators are unable to follow it...
Really?
I wonder if such massive bills can be taken to court and ruled as unconstitutional..
I find the idea of one bill = one subject intriguing, but is it practical?
At the very least, US/Federal bills should per department.
I personally would like to see anonymous additions taken out right away. I don't care if what's being added is the one thing I have always dreamed on going in to law (all president's must wear a scented hotdog suit filled with dog biscuts at all times if anyone was wondering), but good government cannot be run anonymously.
I find the idea of one bill = one subject intriguing, but is it practical?
That would depend on what the definition of "is" is.
(That's my way of saying that politicians will find some way to claim that their little extras are somehow related to the bill's subject, no matter how wild their claims might be)
Pass a new Constitutional Amendment for the creation of a new "house" within Congress...
Adding an additional layer of complexity will not positively affect the manner in which Congress functions, especially in this case as the proposed third house could unilaterally overrule anything accomplished by the other two. At least when the President shuts down a bill with a veto the matter is over and done, and likely was clearly communicated before the relevant bill even passed. Under the proposed system there is no such element of finality, a bill could pass both houses and still remain in debate indefinitely, even long after it has taken effect.
Pass a new Constitutional Amendment for the creation of a new "house" within Congress...
Adding an additional layer of complexity will not positively affect the manner in which Congress functions, especially in this case as the proposed third house could unilaterally overrule anything accomplished by the other two. At least when the President shuts down a bill with a veto the matter is over and done, and likely was clearly communicated before the relevant bill even passed. Under the proposed system there is no such element of finality, a bill could pass both houses and still remain in debate indefinitely, even long after it has taken effect.
KISS system gave up a long long llloonnngggggg time ago
Grey Templar wrote: At the very least, the law should be in plain language. IIRC there actually is a law which says as much, but I don't think people follow that when writing some laws.
The Plain Writing Act only applies to Federal agencies, not to Congress. Quite honestly, I don't think it would be possible to write laws in plain language as there is too much established law and jurisprudence which is not written that way. Double points because deciding what does and does not constitute plain language can be rather tricky when specificity is critical, as is the case with writing law.
Senior Democrats, dissatisfied with the party’s tepid prescriptions for combating income inequality, are drafting an “action plan” that calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the super-rich and Wall Street traders to the heart of the middle class.
The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a “paycheck bonus credit” that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year.
The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.
The plan also would use the tax code to prod employers to boost wages, which have been stagnant for four decades despite gains in productivity and profits.
“This is a plan to help tackle the challenge of our times,” Van Hollen said, previewing a Monday speech at the Center for American Progress. “We want a growing economy that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy few.”
With Republicans in control on Capitol Hill, Democrats have little hope of pushing the plan through Congress. Instead, they are looking to craft an alternative to GOP plans to cut tax rates for the top earners, and to shape a new Democratic agenda for 2016 that offers voters the promise of genuine change.
The plan marks a rejection of the more cautious approach to economic policy taken last year by President Obama and Democratic leaders. That strategy — which emphasized raising the minimum wage, achieving pay equity for women and easing the burden of college debt — tanked with voters. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and nine in the Senate, ceding control of that chamber to Republicans.
Individually, the policies polled well, but they were too narrow to inspire voters who were less interested in social justice than in broad economic advancement.
“The challenge is a big one. You have to think big, you have to think forward, and you have to think new. You have to think new and fresh,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in an interview, endorsing Van Hollen’s proposal. Van Hollen said that he has briefed senior administration officials and that they were receptive.
Since the election, Obama, too, has begun to conceive more
muscular policies with broader appeal, including a plan to make two years of community college free for most students.
But even that idea tinkers at the edges of the problem in a nation where wages for most workers have been stagnant over the past 40 years. Meanwhile, the lion’s share of economic growth has flowed to the top 1 percent of earners, households pulling in an average of $1.4 million a year, according to 2011 data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
“Too often, Republicans and too many Democrats think that macroeconomic growth is pretty much all you need to lift the middle class. And there’s no question that overall growth in GDP and corporate profitability are necessary. But they’re obviously not sufficient,” said Jared Bernstein, a former Obama White House economist now at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Van Hollen’s plan recognizes “that there needs to be more policy in place to help reconnect middle-class families with overall growth,” Bernstein said.
Although income inequality was the dominant theme in Democratic campaign speeches last year, the party has long lacked “a comprehensive [policy] strategy for dealing with this fundamental problem,” Van Hollen said.
Instead, Democrats echoed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the liberal icon who charged in dozens of appearances on behalf of Democratic candidates that the system is “rigged” against the working class by powerful special interests, particularly Wall Street bankers.
That message rang true for liberals, who poured into auditoriums and fields to hear Warren speak. But the centrist voters who decided most races broke against Democrats.
In an election postmortem, Democratic firms SKDKnickerbocker and the Benenson Strategy Group found that the party’s message had been off target, even for much of the base. Although the economy is growing and the jobless rate has fallen, most voters still don’t feel it.
Sixty percent of moderates and 62 percent of independents said they would favor “a candidate who emphasizes growth” over one who wants to “improve the economy through economic fairness.” More than 70 percent of Republicans favored a “growth” message, and Democrats split 50-50 on the question.
Many Democratic lawmakers are now making the same point.
“We need a pro-growth economic agenda,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal (Mass.), a senior Democrat on the influential House Ways and Means Committee. “We need to embrace the traditional Democratic positions of optimism and aspiration.”
Enter Van Hollen, 56, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee and a former chairman of the party’s campaign arm for House races. Close to Pelosi and the White House, he has emerged as one of the party’s big thinkers on economic policy and political strategy.
Like many Democrats, Van Hollen argues that creating a more prosperous middle class is the best route to overall growth in an economy driven by consumer spending. He began working on his action plan even before the November blowout, a tacit acknowledgment that he saw that the party’s agenda was weak.
“You can’t just say you’re going to address things like the middle-class squeeze without policy. Otherwise, it’s just talk,” Van Hollen said. “This plan attacks the chronic problem of stagnant middle-class income from both directions, creating bigger paychecks and letting workers keep more of what they earn.”
To spur employers to increase pay, the plan would target corporations, prohibiting companies from deducting executive performance bonuses in excess of $1 million, a benefit worth $66 billion from 2007 to 2010. To claim the deduction, companies would have to demonstrate that workers had shared in the company’s good fortunes by increasing wages about 4 percent, on par with inflation and productivity growth.
Other provisions would provide incentives to companies that give workers a share of corporate profits and invest in job training, through apprenticeship programs or partnerships with community colleges.
Blossoming wages would also stretch further under the plan, primarily through the paycheck bonus, worth $1,000 to individuals and $2,000 to couples. The idea is similar to Obama’s “Make Work Pay” credit, part of the 2009 stimulus package, but Obama’s credit was temporary and, at $400 per person, much smaller.
Van Hollen also proposes to:
●Increase the tax credit for child care from $3,000 per person to $8,000, or $16,000 per couple.
●Create a “saver’s bonus” of $250 for workers who put at least $500 a year into retirement or other savings accounts.
●And reduce marriage penalties for dual-income couples, particularly the working poor.
To avoid increasing federal budget deficits, Van Hollen proposes to limit tax breaks for the top 1 percent of earners, who are on track to reap more than $2 trillion over the next decade from favorable rates on capital gains, the mortgage-interest deduction and other “tax expenditures,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.
He also calls for imposing a 0.1 percent fee on stock trades, an idea under consideration by the European Union. That proposal would raise as much as $800 billion over the next decade, primarily from high-volume traders, Van Hollen said.
All told, the package is about a third of the size of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. It would transfer about 0.6 percent of national income, or gross domestic product, from millionaires and Wall Street traders to about 150 million American workers, with the paycheck bonus alone reaching at least 100 million workers.
“We believe our economy grows faster when all paychecks are rising,” Van Hollen said. The plan, he said, “would put meat on the bones” of promises Democrats have been making to voters for a long time.
Shortly after Election Day in 2012, a Mitt Romney supporter moaned to POLITICO about the failed GOP nominee’s performance: “We had no message, and we gave it to the worst communicator in the world.”
Two years later, Romney is mulling over another campaign for the White House, and this time, he says, things will be different.
In meetings with and individual calls to donors, supporters and former staffers, Romney is making it clear that he is likely to run, putting his time frame for a decision at “weeks, not months.”
Romney, who made a fortune in the financial sector and was cast by Democrats in 2012 as a heartless businessman, wants to make tackling poverty — a key issue for his 2012 vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan — one of the three pillars of his campaign. The former Massachusetts governor also says he’ll have a different communications staff and hopes to show voters a version of himself they didn’t get to see last time. (There’s even a Netflix documentary he can point to.)
Yet interviews with more than a dozen staffers and supporters who have recently spoken with Romney reveal conversations in which he promises a “different” path forward without providing specifics about what that means as far as mechanics and his own sometimes gaffe-ridden performance. And, aside from most of his communications team, Romney would still be expected to bring back the majority of his old staff, sources said.
“He really has to show people that he’d do it differently, rather than just say he’d do it differently,” said a former top adviser to Romney, one of half a dozen alumni to speak Monday with POLITICO. “He needs to assure folks he’d take a much more direct approach to laying out the vision for his campaign versus having those decisions driven by a bunch of warring consultants.”
Romney announced Friday that he is considering running in 2016, in what would be his third attempt at the presidency. The first time, in 2008, he ran as a conservative. His decision came after Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said he was actively exploring a White House run. On Monday, Ryan announced that he will not run for president, possibly an indicator that he believes Romney is serious.
“A lot of people don’t think Jeb has the fire in the belly,” said one uncommitted Republican donor, who expressed “shock” that Romney is considering another race.
Romney didn’t leave much in the ashes of 2012 that was worth replicating. He was a skilled debater, but his campaign was criticized for its threadbare messaging, staff insularity, a lack of data savvy and a fatalistic approach to the press. Yet even that failed effort was meticulously prepared for by Romney, with years of tending to donors’ neuroses and staffers’ concerns.
And amid growing speculation that Romney would jump in the 2016 fray, doubts have persisted about his ability to improve his own performance. His own party’s chairman, Reince Priebus, responded to calls for Romney to run again at a recent donor luncheon in Manhattan by pointing out the candidate’s many self-inflicted wounds.
Romney and his top aides have often attributed the loss to events out of their control. Within two weeks of the loss, Romney bluntly told a large number of donors on a conference call that Obama unfairly put his thumb on the scale with policy “gifts” to key constituencies, “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”
“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” he said at the time.
Romney allies have also insisted to the former Massachusetts governor, and he has echoed in conversations he’s had, that the main reason he lost in 2012 was that he was running against an incumbent president, and that he would have an easier path in 2016. In 2012, Romney veered well to the right to win over primary voters, moves many believe cost him in the general — but he has scoffed in private conversations at Bush’s insistence that he won’t do the same in order to win the nomination.
Regardless, “I think he’d be the first person to tell you, absolutely,” he needs to run a better race, said Robert O’Brien, a California-based Republican donor who was recently courted by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz but who decided to wait to see where Romney stands. O’Brien, who said he’d received a call from Romney in recent days, added: “If he decides to run, I think you’ll see a different campaign and I think you’ll see a campaign in which the American people get to really know Mitt Romney as a person.”
Bush and Romney already are calling many of the same donors and operatives, in some cases within hours of each other, to make their pitch, round up support and lay claim to staff. Romney has also called at least two key officials in the early primary state of New Hampshire, former Sen. Judd Gregg and his successor, current Sen. Kelly Ayotte, sources said. Romney and Bush are among prominent figures invited to the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego this week, RNC spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed to POLITICO. Bush is not planning to attend the meeting, an aide to the former Florida governor said.
Romney, who just a year ago categorically ruled out a third White House run, is to some extent playing catch-up. Some of his former supporters are lining up behind Bush for 2016, and some staffers are reluctant to join him again. Romney has been burning up the phones to top members of his old finance team, and he hopes to bring back a majority of his old staff, sources said.
“There’ll be a lot of old faces and some new faces,” said one source who’s spoken with him.
Romney has been in frequent touch with his longtime adviser Stuart Stevens, although it isn’t clear whether he would be brought back in the chief strategist role he held last time. But Russ Schriefer, Stevens’ partner and ad-maker, is aligned with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
People like former RNC official Ray Washburne have committed to playing key roles in a Christie campaign. And a number of donors say some Romney alumni would sooner back Christie than Bush, who’s had past friction with Romney.
Polls show Romney as the leader on the GOP side and faring better in a general election than Bush. But the reality is likely to be harsher than the numbers suggest. For one thing, the emerging GOP field is large and includes several potentially strong contenders from gubernatorial and senatorial ranks.
“It would be difficult, hand-to-hand trench warfare,” said Dave Carney, a New Hampshire-based strategist who was Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s top adviser in 2012. “The class of competitors this time around are a class or two above the 2012 group of contenders. Misreading of polling data is a common affliction that unsuccessful, and too many successful politicians suffer. His first hurdle would be to explain how this campaign would be different then his last two failures.”
A senior Romney adviser in 2012 said the former Massachusetts governor would approach the primaries very differently “by virtue of experience,” determined not to utter the kind of self-destructive statements he did last time in order to outflank his challengers on the right. For instance, in 2012, he suggested pursuing policies that lead undocumented immigrants to “self-deport” — a remark that cost him badly among Hispanic voters in the general election.
Besides a focus on helping the poor, the other two pillars he’s told people he would build a new campaign around are supporting the middle class and a muscular foreign policy, an area where he believes he was strongly vindicated from his 2012 campaign against President Barack Obama. Romney, for instance, warned about the strategic threat posed by Russia, which many at the time thought was an overstatement.
The multimillionaire also is cognizant of the damage done last time by his derisive remarks about “47 percent” of the population, whom he cast as moochers.
“If he does go forward, there will be heavier doses of foreign policy,” a senior adviser told POLITICO. “That was a strength of his last campaign. A lot of what he said has been borne out … All that feeds into a narrative.”
“The economic focus has to be different as well,” he added. “There will be more focus on mobility and softer economic issues. There will also probably be more on upward mobility and opportunity.”
Another senior official on the 2012 Romney effort said the campaign then struggled to scale up after it secured the GOP nomination. He believes a 2016 campaign would be organized from the start with a general election victory in mind.
“The value for the Obama campaign in ’12 was the muscle memory,” the adviser said. “They’d gone through the battles together and had trust. That doesn’t mean you have to have the exact same team. You need the structure, but you don’t need the exact same people. In ’12, the Obama people could tap into the talent they had in 2008. In many ways, we have that type of apparatus in place for Mitt.”
Advisers mulling over a 2016 Romney redux also hope the campaign will be smarter about spending. “Institutionally, they could raise the same amount as last time,” a senior Romney alum said. “But, by having a team that knows where the pitfalls are, we could be 30 percent more efficient.”
Another senior adviser who just spent time with Romney described him as genuinely relaxed and much looser than during the marathon of the 2012 campaign, but that he appears “very serious” about running again. The adviser said Romney is not as worried about money and support materializing as the coverage of the last few days suggests.
“His assumption is, if he decides to run, a lot of that stuff will come online,” the adviser said. “He has a desire to be president. I’m not sure if he has an overwhelming desire to run for president. I tend to think this will flush out over the next 10 days.”
Longtime Romney confidant Eric Fehrnstrom said it is premature to sketch out what a campaign organization would look like when the former governor has not made a final decision on whether to run. But he spoke to why Romney is giving the race another look.
“Our economy is still not as strong as it could be, long-term growth is in doubt, workers have gone a long time without pay raises and can’t save for a kid’s college or their own retirement, and around the world there’s deep concern that as America’s leadership has unraveled, hostile forces have filled the vacuum,” Fehrnstrom wrote in an email. “Mitt Romney spoke to these issues in the last campaign, he was right on many of them, and I expect if he runs again they will form the core of another campaign for president.”
James Carville, a longtime backer of Hillary Clinton, the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, said Team Romney is engaging in wishful thinking. He not only has fared poorly with minority voters, a growing bloc, in the past, but the economy has improved significantly since 2012. Carville pointed out that Romneyites like to say what he got right but leave out that he predicted economic calamity if Obama was reelected.
“We know the demographics are going the wrong way for him, and if the trend is any good, it looks like the economy is going to be going the wrong way [for Romney too],” Carville said. He added that more generally, “2016 is going to be a challenging year for Republicans.”
But another alumnus of Romney’s presidential campaigns said a new effort would “tell the story of Mitt better.” Several Romney veterans recalled how well the accounts from parishioners in Romney’s Mormon community resonated with voters who had been bombarded with ads about his tenure at Bain Capital.
The documentary “Mitt,” released by Netflix last year, further improved Romney’s image. Campaign operatives had resisted giving the filmmakers access, but Romney’s five sons opened up family meetings and other private conversations. The result was a production that humanized him and his Mormon faith.
“The movie really pulled the curtain back,” one Romney alum said. “It’s a good story to tell. We didn’t do that last time, and it allowed Obama to paint a caricature. We’d show him as a person more. In the first campaign, we were so afraid to even mention the ‘M’ word. Now it doesn’t even matter.”
Tom Rath, a New Hampshire-based Republican and a longtime Romney backer who also received a call from him, said he believes the different circumstances of 2016 versus 2012 are in Romney’s favor. He also expects Romney to make up his mind “sooner rather than later.”
“The context of this campaign will be very different than the one we ran last time,” Rath said. “There’s not going to be a lot of surprises to him.”
I liked Romney, especially after watching the Netflix Documentary.
But, he's I'm not convinced he can "win" more people over than the last election. He can't just run a "I told you so" campaign.
One of the restrictions placed in SuperPAC's is that they are not allowed to coordinate their activities with a candidate (although I'm pretty sure that this is already easy enough to work around). Now it seems that they are able to follow the letter of the law, but probably not the spirit of the law.
Jeb Bush is actively and publicly working with the SuperPAC that is supporting him, and it appears to be completely legit because he isn't "officially" running yet. Even though many people "know" he will run, until he files any official paperwork he is not a "candidate" and is not subject to any restrictions between himself and the SuperPACs. Even Hillary, the perpetual "everyone knows she is running" candidate, can do this until she files anything official.
I highly suspect that Jeb isn't the first to do this, only the first to do it openly. Elections have always been for sale.
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, will give a major foreign policy address next week in London. According to early excerpts of the address, Jindal will use the speech to bash Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, and to go after radical Islam in wake of last week's Paris terrorist attacks.
Referring to Clinton's recent comment on having empathy for the views of America's enemies, Jindal is planning to say, "Our former Secretary of State in America recently said that we need to 'show respect for our enemies' and 'empathize with their perspective and point of view.' Well, yes, understanding our enemies as a means of destroying them, I’m all for that. But empathizing with them as if perhaps we can find some common ground, I have no interest in that kind of mindless naiveté."
He'll continue:
Let me be blunt about this. I want America’s allies to trust us and respect us, and I want our enemies to fear us. Every day our enemies spend their time trying to avoid our justice is a day they are not plotting against us. And I fear that in recent years this has not been the case.
The events of the past several years clearly suggest that America’s allies are often less than certain that they can count on us, and our enemies too often do not fear us. Of course, as Americans we want all people to live in harmony, and we do not desire to have any enemies. But the simple truth is that we do, but that is not of our doing.
There are people in the world who mean us harm, who desire our downfall, and who simply detest us because we stand for freedom. I have no interest in coddling them, or pretending that bad is good. Sugar coating the reality of the situation serves no purpose, we must not be afraid to speak the truth.
A wise man once said, 'the truth will set you free.'
And here's what Jindal will have to say about the recent jihadist attacks in Paris, according to preview of the prepared remarks:
"Now, let’s talk very directly about the elephant in the room…that is, allow me to discuss the recent horrific events in France.
"I will warn you in advance that I’m going to say some things that are not politically correct, so brace yourselves.
"To be clear, I have no interest in defaming any religion, nor do I have any interest in assigning the maniacal acts of radical Islamists to millions of Muslims worldwide.
"I’m interested only in dealing with reality and facts.
"And the fact is that radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency nor are they willing to accommodate it in any way and anywhere.
"We need to stop pretending otherwise.
"We are fools to pretend otherwise. How many Muslims in this world agree with these radicals? I have no idea, I hope it is a small minority.
"But it is clear that far too many do, and it is clear that they must be stopped.
"For example, note what radical Islamists do when given the chance in territories they control either in the Middle East or even in Europe.
"In Iraq, ISIS commits genocide, enslaves women and beheads opponents.
"And in the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of Sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.
"It is startling to think that any country would allow, even unofficially, for a so called 'no-go zone.'
"The idea that a free country would allow for specific areas of its country to operate in an autonomous way that is not free and is in direct opposition to its laws is hard to fathom.
"Another example is the rise of anti-Semitism in many places, even in continental Europe.
"Over the last couple of years we have been alarmed to see blatant and astoundingly bold acts of persecution and bigotry against Jewish persons and property, to such a degree that Jewish emigration from Europe is increasing.
"How does such evil rise again in democratic countries?
"I believe it is because radical Islamists have been given too wide a berth to establish their own nation within a nation. I am encouraged to see France’s Prime Minister speak out against this travesty.
"In America we are quite happy to welcome freedom loving people, regardless of religion, who want to abide by our laws allowing for freedom of expression and a host of other democratic freedoms.
"But we will never allow for any sect of people to set up their own areas where they establish their own set of laws.
"We have to stop pretending that right and wrong do not exist.
"For example – Sharia law is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong.
"It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally.
"It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.
"In my country, Christianity is the largest religion. And we require exactly no one to conform to it. And we do not discriminate against anyone who does not conform to it. It’s called freedom.
"A so-called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement.
"I do continue to believe and hope that most Muslims oppose these bloodthirsty acts of terror.
"But that is not the point. Whether they do or not, the point is that radical Islamists do advocate the slaughter of those who reject their views.
"Free peoples everywhere must not pretend otherwise and must not coddle those who hold these views. And they must have courage.
"I favor robust debate on everything – on religion, on policy, on politics, on everything. It is called freedom.
"But when debate stops, and when a movement decides that they no longer want to debate their ideas, but rather they want to simply subdue, silence, and kill those who disagree…that is called terrorism, barbarism, and inhuman behavior, and it cannot and must not be tolerated.
"Let’s be honest here, Islam has a problem.
"If Islam does not support what is happening in the name of Islam, then they need to stand up and stop it. Many Islamic leaders argue that these are the acts of a radical few.
"Ok, it is their problem, and they need to deal with it.
"Muslim leaders must make clear that anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all.
How is shouting freedom more times than Mel Gibson in Braveheart building foreign policy acumen? He's just creating freedom soundbites that will play really well with people who also like to scream freedom again and again.
Saying that it's pretty much Islam's problem to sort out their fundamentalists otherwise they're getting tarred with same brush seems pretty strong and reasonable to me.
Medium of Death wrote: Off topic, but why didn't you vote for this clearly prescient man?
Because he didn't predict anything that numerous, non-talking head, analysts did not also predict and he could not have done anything to prevent the inevitable.
As an example: nearly every survey regarding domestic support for US military action abroad, beginning in the early 90's and extending to the early 2000's, indicated that more than 80% of Americans supported action against Saddam Hussein. And you can be damn sure that some member of congress would call for it, making it a virtual necessity.
I suspect it won't make a difference - not 5 years in. No one cares about the SOTU during a second term unless something extreme has happened recently.
New York Daily News wrote:The Republican Party’s most treasured rabble-rouser was forced to improvise part of her speech at a Tea Party conference in Iowa Saturday after her teleprompter apparently broke in the middle of her delivery.
I think this is fitting, given the context:
It isn't often that you get to say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't follow your own advice..."
I can't count the number of times on these forums it was stated that the only reason President Obama gives decent speeches is because he uses a teleprompter despite all evidence to the contrary, and yet Mrs. Palin loses her teleprompter and immediately reveals herself as a gibbering idiot, and silence.
I'll chalk it up the thankfully dwindling interest in The Half-Term Governor.
Ouze wrote: I can't count the number of times on these forums it was stated that the only reason President Obama gives decent speeches is because he uses a teleprompter despite all evidence to the contrary, and yet Mrs. Palin loses her teleprompter and immediately reveals herself as a gibbering idiot, and silence.
I'll chalk it up the thankfully dwindling interest in The Half-Term Governor.
I'm quite sure ms. Palin would tell you there is only ONE saviour .
I hope she gets through to the final event, if so it will be the first presidential race i've been interested in.
Whembley you like Sarah Palin?? But she's a middle america demogogue , she relies on good old values and crud like that to sustain her popularity (a s far as I see it). Next thing you know she'll be claiming that Mexicans need to speak english and Americans need to reclaim America.
Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
Sure, just like everyone who voted against Obama is a racist.
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
Sure, just like everyone who voted against Obama is a racist.
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
Ummm...the Democrats DID have the first female vice-presidential candidate.
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
You mean Geraldine Ferraro doesn't count?
Right. Forgot about that.
I'll change it to first one who had a chance of getting elected.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whose speech to activists in Iowa last weekend drew strong reviews, has taken the first formal step toward a presidential candidacy in 2016, establishing a committee that will help spread his message and underwrite his activities as he seeks to build his political and fundraising networks in the months ahead.
Walker filed papers to set up the committee, called "Our American Revival," and a new Web site for the organization was scheduled to go live later Tuesday. The steps come after a busy weekend of pre-presidential events that included his address at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a later appearance at a gathering in California hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers and a stopover in Denver for additional fundraising.
“Our American Revival encompasses the shared values that make our country great; limiting the powers of the federal government to those defined in the Constitution while creating a leaner, more efficient, more effective and more accountable government to the American people,” Walker said in a statement in the release announcing the committee.
Walker’s steps come at a time when other prospective candidates are making similar moves in what has quickly become the largest prospective field of Republican candidates and the most wide open nomination contest in the modern history of the party.
The governor’s Iowa speech helped establish him more firmly in a presidential field that includes bigger names like former Florida governor Jeb Bush and possibly Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, as well as bigger personalities like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, veterans of past presidential campaigns and newcomers with specific appeal to parts of the GOP’s conservative base.
The second-term governor has made no secret of his interest in becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, and he has recently made key additions to his political team, including the hiring of Rick Wiley, a former Republican National Committee political director, to lead the organizing effort. Wiley will serve as executive director of Our American Revival.
The formation of the new committee represents Walker’s most significant step to date in a process that is expected to result in a declaration of candidacy later this year, once he and the legislature have gone through the budget process in his state.
Walker has had a stormy tenure as governor, but one in which he has repeatedly emerged victorious over his opponents. His decision to take on public employee unions in Wisconsin in early 2009 created huge protests around the state Capitol building in Madison and left the state deeply polarized around his leadership.
That anger resulted in a recall election in 2012, which Walker survived. He went on to win his reelection campaign last November by a comfortable margin, and his three victories in four years have made him a hero among many conservatives.
He now uses those battles as a badge of honor when he speaks at party gatherings. Last Saturday in Des Moines, he spoke of the death threats he and his family received during the height of the protests in Wisconsin and thanked those in the audience and elsewhere who had prayed for his family during those times. Along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Walker won the biggest ovations of the day from the conservative audience.
His message to Republicans is not one of compromise or conciliation with the Democrats. In Iowa, he called for a “big and bold” conservative agenda and predicted, based on his own experience in Wisconsin, that voters will respond positively to that type of leadership, even if they disagree with some of the particulars.
“If you’re not afraid to go big and go bold, you can actually get results,” he said in Iowa. “And if you get the job done, the voters will actually stand up with you.”
There is considerable interest in Walker’s likely candidacy, but there are many questions about him as a prospective presidential candidate as well, including whether he can scale up his political operation for a national race. He lacks foreign policy experience, though he is not alone in the GOP field on that issue.
His low-key personality has raised doubts about his capacity to generate excitement and energy among the party’s base, but his performance in Iowa on Saturday may have helped answer some of those questions.
Walker’s hope is to find some support in the establishment wing of the party, and as a second-term governor he will seek to appeal to those Republicans who believe their best hope of winning in 2016 is with a governor who has executive experience outside of Washington. He also has stressed the importance of new leaders and fresh faces in a party whose presidential field includes a group of prospective candidates who have been out of office for some years.
His battles with the unions and others in the Democratic left and his reform agenda in Wisconsin give him an entrée to the tea party wing of the GOP, and as the son of a Baptist minister he will try to appeal to religious conservatives as well.
A Walker candidacy faces obstacles in such a crowded field. Although he raised tens of millions of dollars for his recall election, he will have to prove that he can do so under the rules for presidential campaigns. He has gotten considerable scrutiny as governor, including revelations from legal action questioning whether his campaign engaged in illegal coordination. The legal investigations have resulted in no action against him, and he has maintained that he is not a target. But he will face even more scrutiny across the board as a presidential candidate.
Walker’s committee is different than some others created by aspiring presidential candidates. It is not a so-called leadership PAC but rather is a “527,” so labeled for the portion of the federal tax code that provides its tax-exempt status.
A Walker adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to share internal discussions, said the governor decided to go that route because leadership PACs technically are designed in part to be vehicles to give money to other politicians. Many who create them use them principally for their own political activity. The committee can advocate for policies the governor has championed.
Regulations allow Walker to raise money for the committee in unlimited amounts but will require him to periodically reveal contributions and expenditures, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s Web site.
Let it be known, that when he re-won election in WI, I called Mr. Walker for a Presidential bid in 2016. I wonder if Biden will make a run at it?
So, how do you think the Presidnet is doing in trying to move the Overton window of Political discussion back to the left a bit with his State of the Union Address? Is it working? Will we see his party echo the same themes in 2016?
Easy E wrote: Let it be known, that when he re-won election in WI, I called Mr. Walker for a Presidential bid in 2016.
Yeup... I remember that. Good call.
I wonder if Biden will make a run at it?
Only if Hillary doesn't run... but man... as a political junkie, that'd be such a great trainwreck of a campaign.
So, how do you think the Presidnet is doing in trying to move the Overton window of Political discussion back to the left a bit with his State of the Union Address? Is it working? Will we see his party echo the same themes in 2016?
Not very well imo...
He wants to tax 529's to pay for "free" community colleges...
He wants to lock down ANWAR even more (just picking a fight here)...
Could someone please explain this to me. As a first year college student with not much money, I'm concerned about anything to do with my college funds.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Could someone please explain this to me. As a first year college student with not much money, I'm concerned about anything to do with my college funds.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Could someone please explain this to me. As a first year college student with not much money, I'm concerned about anything to do with my college funds.
You have 529's?
You don't need to worry... Obama's plan doesn't really have a chance in hell in passing thru Congress (Republicans are your friends here )
That seems... outrageously stupid. College kids are the last people you want to tax, especially with funds that are specific to paying for college, which is so damn expensive. I'm going to a public college (SUNYIT/SUNYPOLY to be specific) and that's about $18K a year, IIRC.
529 funds are not taxable when applied to room and board. As such a kid given money from his parent's 529 could use it as he saw fit; tax free.
I wouldn't call that abuse per se...
But room & board on college campuses (not to mention tuition itself) is fething insane.
Defintly. It's often more than the tuition.
I just looked up the expenses for my college.
For a full tiime student it's:
$3,085 per semester for tuition (for NY residents)
$625 per semester for various fees
$3,518 per semester for a room (double)
$2,100 per semester for food
For a total of $9,328 foe semester, or $18,656 per year.
Not at all. Giving your children money to live inside and eat is not money laundering - thats not even a remotely sane argument-AND ITS SPECIFIALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE 529.
However, while I won't debate I look forward to your view on why it is.
529 funds are not taxable when applied to room and board. As such a kid given money from his parent's 529 could use it as he saw fit; tax free.
I wouldn't call that abuse per se...
But room & board on college campuses (not to mention tuition itself) is fething insane.
Defintly. It's often more than the tuition.
I just looked up the expenses for my college.
For a full tiime student it's:
$3,085 per semester for tuition (for NY residents)
$625 per semester for various fees
$3,518 per semester for a room (double)
$2,100 per semester for food
For a total of $9,328 foe semester, or $18,656 per year.
^ that right there is criminal.
Hence I need to find where ScooterPuffy lives... I want him to inspire my boys to blue-collar jobs. (I'll still support them if they want to go to academia, but I want them cognizant of all options).
Grey Templar wrote: Admit it, Democrats are just a little butthurt that they didn't have the first female Presidential/Vice presidential candidate. That's just gotta get their knockers in a knot.
You mean Geraldine Ferraro doesn't count?
Right. Forgot about that.
I'll change it to first one who had a chance of getting elected.
I have a Scottsman that would like a word with you.
Especially since Palin likely cost McCain votes in the swing states.
Not at all. Giving your children money to live inside and eat is not money laundering - thats not even a remotely sane argument-AND ITS SPECIFIALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE 529.
That isn't anything like the argument I made, or that Obama made.
529 funds are not taxable when applied to room and board. As such a kid given money from his parent's 529 could use it as he saw fit; tax free.
I wouldn't call that abuse per se...
But room & board on college campuses (not to mention tuition itself) is fething insane.
Defintly. It's often more than the tuition.
I just looked up the expenses for my college. For a full tiime student it's: $3,085 per semester for tuition (for NY residents) $625 per semester for various fees $3,518 per semester for a room (double) $2,100 per semester for food For a total of $9,328 foe semester, or $18,656 per year.
^ that right there is criminal.
Hence I need to find where ScooterPuffy lives... I want him to inspire my boys to blue-collar jobs. (I'll still support them if they want to go to academia, but I want them cognizant of all options).
Yep. And this is a SUNY college, the least expensive colleges in New York state. In some private colleges you pay like 18K per semester.
Our whole higher education system needs and overhaul. Not everyone needs to go to college, we should have stuff in high school to give people opportunities to get a job without going to college, farming, logging, production related jobs, ect. Colleges cost way to much. I'm getting a CS degree, and those types of jobs are in high demand right now, especially if they have anything to do with computer security, but I doubt I'll have my loans payed off for a long while, especially if I go on to get a masters (which cost about twice as much).
Not at all. Giving your children money to live inside and eat is not money laundering - thats not even a remotely sane argument-AND ITS SPECIFIALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE 529.
That isn't anything like the argument I made.
Please make your argument. You just said it was money laundering. Support your unique claim strongly or its not fit for even base consideration.
Not at all. Giving your children money to live inside and eat is not money laundering - thats not even a remotely sane argument-AND ITS SPECIFIALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE 529.
However, while I won't debate I look forward to your view on why it is.
One way it may be considered money laundering:
- Put lots of money in a 529, let it grow tax-free.
- Send kid to college
- Kid decides to rent a room and pay landlord for food
- Landlord is me
- Get my original investment back, plus earnings, don't pay taxes.
- Put lots of money in a 529, let it grow tax-free. - Send kid to college - Kid decides to rent a room and pay landlord for food - Landlord is me - Get my original investment back, plus earnings, don't pay taxes.
Just a thought.
Thats interesting. on the flipside, if its an arm's length transaction its still legitimate. They would have to rent from some place and you're under no obligation to keep the little buggers (I installed an ejection seat attached to their beds with a time release set for 12.01 AM on their 18th birthday). If its market rate rent then there wouldn't be an issue.
Not at all. Giving your children money to live inside and eat is not money laundering - thats not even a remotely sane argument-AND ITS SPECIFIALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE 529.
However, while I won't debate I look forward to your view on why it is.
One way it may be considered money laundering:
- Put lots of money in a 529, let it grow tax-free.
- Send kid to college
- Kid decides to rent a room and pay landlord for food
- Landlord is me
- Get my original investment back, plus earnings, don't pay taxes.
Just a thought.
That would be illegal as any expeditures must be an eligible educational institution, as defined by IRS rules.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf (see page 10)
The educational institution says how much it would cost to room and board there, the room and board expenses do not have to be paid to the institution however.
- Put lots of money in a 529, let it grow tax-free.
- Send kid to college
- Kid decides to rent a room and pay landlord for food
- Landlord is me
- Get my original investment back, plus earnings, don't pay taxes.
Just a thought.
I thought that money laundering was the process of sanitizing money gained from an illegal revenue source
Within certain limitations, you can use 529 plan funds to pay the rent as long as the student is enrolled at least half time. IRS Publication 970, Tax Benefits for Education, spells it out:
The expense for room and board qualifies only to the extent that it is not more than the greater of the following two amounts:
The allowance for room and board, as determined by the eligible educational institution, that was included in the cost of attendance (for federal financial aid purposes) for a particular academic period and living arrangement of the student.
The actual amount charged if the student is residing in housing owned or operated by the eligible educational institution. You should contact the school to learn about qualified room and board costs. One rule of thumb pertains here: It's important to take the distribution from the 529 plan in the same tax year that you pay the qualified expense.
The 529 plan may also be used for utilities as long as the total expense is below the total established by the school.
- Put lots of money in a 529, let it grow tax-free.
- Send kid to college
- Kid decides to rent a room and pay landlord for food
- Landlord is me
- Get my original investment back, plus earnings, don't pay taxes.
Just a thought.
I thought that money laundering was the process of sanitizing money gained from an illegal revenue source
Within certain limitations, you can use 529 plan funds to pay the rent as long as the student is enrolled at least half time. IRS Publication 970, Tax Benefits for Education, spells it out:
The expense for room and board qualifies only to the extent that it is not more than the greater of the following two amounts:
The allowance for room and board, as determined by the eligible educational institution, that was included in the cost of attendance (for federal financial aid purposes) for a particular academic period and living arrangement of the student.
The actual amount charged if the student is residing in housing owned or operated by the eligible educational institution. You should contact the school to learn about qualified room and board costs. One rule of thumb pertains here: It's important to take the distribution from the 529 plan in the same tax year that you pay the qualified expense.
The 529 plan may also be used for utilities as long as the total expense is below the total established by the school.
A university calculates "cost of attendance" using either on-campus housing, which is what you highlighted, or if you plan on living off-campus they do a survey of expenses paid by students living in private housing and calculate that average and add it to all the other expenses that you will likely incur as your "cost of attendance".
"Cost of attendance" =/= "money paid to school".
"Eligible Education Expense" = "money paid to be able to attend the educational program" =/= "money paid to school".
That's why my textbooks are an eligible expense. It doesn't matter if I purchased them from the University, Amazon.com, or my parents who purchased them from Amazon and are "selling" them to me for twice the price and keeping the difference tax free.
That's why my pencils are an eligible expense. It doesn't matter if I purchased them at the University Bookstore, Walmart, or paid my parents twice what they paid for them.
That's why off-campus living expenses, up to the limit calculated by the university, are an eligible expense. It doesn't matter if I live in a hotel room 4 days a week and go home on the weekend, it doesn't matter if I rent a room for $200 a month even though the university calculated an allowance of $900, or if I rent my old bedroom at my parents house for $900.
I just looked up the expenses for my college.
For a full tiime student it's:
$3,085 per semester for tuition (for NY residents)
$625 per semester for various fees
$3,518 per semester for a room (double)
$2,100 per semester for food
For a total of $9,328 foe semester, or $18,656 per year.
^ that right there is criminal.
Hence I need to find where ScooterPuffy lives... I want him to inspire my boys to blue-collar jobs. (I'll still support them if they want to go to academia, but I want them cognizant of all options).
Thanks! It's not every day I get a shout out!
Send them on over to the DC area (Northern Virginia specifically) and I can get going on the right path!
As stated by the great John Cleese, she's a "nice looking parrot". She's not half bad at giving speeches or stuff if she has one written/time to get answers, but she tends to be generally clueless when put on the spot.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – The picture isn’t pretty for guys who post a lot of selfies on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram.
A new study showed that men who posted more online photos of themselves than others scored higher on measures of narcissism and psychopathy.
In addition, men who were more likely to edit their selfies before posting scored higher in narcissism and self-objectification, which measures how much they prioritize their appearance.
“It’s not surprising that men who post a lot of selfies and spend more time editing them are more narcissistic, but this is the first time it has actually been confirmed in a study,” said Jesse Fox, lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at The Ohio State University.
“The more interesting finding is that they also score higher on this other anti-social personality trait, psychopathy, and are more prone to self-objectification.”
Fox conducted the study with Margaret Rooney, a graduate student at Ohio State. Their results are published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
Fox emphasized that the results don’t mean that men who post a lot of selfies are necessarily narcissists or psychopaths. The men in the study all scored within the normal range of behavior – but with higher than average levels of these anti-social traits.
Narcissism is marked by a belief that you’re smarter, more attractive and better than others, but with some underlying insecurity. Psychopathy involves a lack of empathy and regard for others and a tendency toward impulsive behavior.
The sample included 800 men from age 18 to 40 who completed an online survey asking about their photo posting behavior on social media. The participants also completed standard questionnaires for anti-social behaviors and for self-objectification. (This study doesn’t include women because the dataset, which Fox received from a magazine, did not have comparable data for women.)
In addition to asking how often they posted photos, the survey inquired about whether the men edited their photos before posting, including cropping photos, using filters and using picture-editing software.
“Most people don’t think that men even do that sort of thing, but they definitely do,” Fox said.
Results showed that posting more photos was related to narcissism and psychopathy, but psychopathy was not related to editing photos.
“That makes sense because psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity. They are going to snap the photos and put them online right away. They want to see themselves. They don’t want to spend time editing,” she said.
Editing photos was also related to higher levels of self-objectification, which has been rarely studied in heterosexual men, Fox said.
Self-objectification involves valuing yourself mainly for your appearance, rather than for other positive traits.
“We know that self-objectification leads to a lot of terrible things, like depression and eating disorders in women,” Fox said.
“With the growing use of social networks, everyone is more concerned with their appearance. That means self-objectification may become a bigger problem for men, as well as for women.”
While this study didn’t include women, Fox said she is currently conducting follow-up work that suggests the same findings found in this research also apply to women. Women who post more selfies also show higher levels of narcissism and psychopathy.
However, self-objectification plays a larger role with women, as would be expected.
Fox said she believes there is a self-reinforcing cycle when it comes to self-objectification. People who score higher on self-objectification post more selfies, which leads to more feedback from friends online, which encourages them to post even more photos of themselves.
“It may make people objectify themselves even more,” she said. “We are running a study on that now.”
Overall, Fox said this and other studies suggest our personality traits may influence how we present ourselves online.
“We are all concerned with our self-presentation online, but how we do that may reveal something about our personality.”
Hmmm... they may be on to something here:
Spoiler:
Bill Nye, President Obama, and Neil deGrasse Tyson took this "Presidential Selfie" today: http://t.co/qmGtHCEi3I pic.twitter.com/UzbqthfKpT
.
