whembly wrote: He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!
That's why you're impossible to reason with. The man goes on record saying he wants to run the country on his version of Christianity and you sit there and roundly deny it.
There is just no getting through you to.
A) that's not theocracy.
B) you're implying that Christianity is a bad, bad thing
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
Run the country on his brand of Christianity, with theocracy meaning running the country in the name of god(s). Yeah whembly quit kidding yourself you are being obtuse on purpose because you got a persecution complex going on.
Ustrello wrote: Run the country on his brand of Christianity, with theocracy meaning running the country in the name of god(s). Yeah whembly quit kidding yourself you are being obtuse on purpose because you got a persecution complex going on.
Nah man...
It's really the anti-Republican fervor here...
Unless you want to label the Reagan or both Bush's administration a "theocracy".
It feels like splitting hairs here... but Whembly is kind of correct:
A Theocracy is a system of governance in which Priests hold the political power and rule in the name of their deity.... Unless Cruz has been ordained in some gak hole church that we don't know about, he doesn't fit the bill here.
Of course, if we just stick with dictionary.com's definition, yeah Cruz fits the bill as he has said repeatedly that "God is higher than the SC" and things to that effect. And it's his willful ignorance of the constitution where it doesn't suit him combined with his religious fervor that make me want to vote for any human being that runs against him.
Edit: Also, when you have Republicans pulling stupid gak like the ones in Michigan did... passing legislation to deal with the anal sex "problem" in the state as opposed to fixing actual problems like, ohh, I don't know... fixing the fething water supply. Yeah, you're gonna see a lot of anti-republican sentiment. Republicans have earned that much.
I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.
Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruze to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.
Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.
LordofHats wrote: I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.
Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruze to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.
Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.
Agreed.
Now, any other predictions on New Hampshire's Primary?
I didn't know this, but some polling stations actually opens at midnight. It ends at 7pm ET.
B) you're implying that Christianity is a bad, bad thing
No, I'm implying that governing a country on the principles of a holy book is a bad thing. You know, something Cruz has made pretty clear that he wants to do and surrounded himself with people that also are proponents of that idea.
But just keep putting your head in the sand and blaming "anti-Republican" fervor.
whembly wrote: I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.
Discussing whether Rubio or Cruz is more right wing is like when my wife asks about which shade of red I’d prefer for the new cushions. Both cushions are red. Maybe if we put them next to each other and stared for several minutes we could see some kind of difference. But ultimately they’d both end up looking exactly the same on the sofa.
Policy direction under Cruz or Rubio would be exactly the same. There’s a difference in personal demeanour, but that doesn’t really matter compared to what they’d actually do in office. And that’s kind of the story for the whole Republican field. There’s still a dozen of them left, so you get a choice, I guess, but on any kind of policy the differences are minimal. Probably even worse, the differences aren’t even debated in any kind of sensible way. It’s just denouncement, attacking each other for deviating from a list of absolutely held values. They don’t discuss or debate the ways in which tax cuts might not always work, they just attack each other for not following tax cuts at every possible opportunity, and so on.
A few people are toeing the rule 1 line and need to address their posts. Similarly, posts made almost entirely out of 1 letter misspellt words can be considered spam, and will be. Everyone just cool your jets a bit.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:It feels like splitting hairs here... but Whembly is kind of correct:
A Theocracy is a system of governance in which Priests hold the political power and rule in the name of their deity.... Unless Cruz has been ordained in some gak hole church that we don't know about, he doesn't fit the bill here.
Of course, if we just stick with dictionary.com's definition, yeah Cruz fits the bill as he has said repeatedly that "God is higher than the SC" and things to that effect. And it's his willful ignorance of the constitution where it doesn't suit him combined with his religious fervor that make me want to vote for any human being that runs against him.
Am I being loose with the term "theocracy?" Sure, but I think it's fair to say that most people except for Whembly seems to understand exactly what myself and others are saying.
LordofHats wrote:I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.
Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruz to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.
Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.
Make no mistake, I don't believe that, if elected, Ted Cruz would or could transform the United States into an actual to the word literal theocracy, but that's besides the point. He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.
Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.
Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.
Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.
LordofHats wrote: And when Hats and Dreadclaw agree on something, some place freezes over.
When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.
When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
I'm an equal opportunity smarty pants, so I have to call out that isn't what people are saying.
Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole never helped anyone (though it makes good comedy ). It's how this line of discussion probably came about to begin with.
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.
When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
I'm an equal opportunity smarty pants, so I have to call out that isn't what people are saying.
Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole never helped anyone (though it makes good comedy ). It's how this line of discussion probably came about to begin with.
But is it hot enough to melt steel beams, Obama's birth certificate, or the Separation of Church and State?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.
Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.
Someone who has made it perfectly clear that he wants to run the country using a holy book can rightfully be called 'theocratic.' The United States has a secular government and people like Ted Cruz and his inner circle want to change that, even if just a little.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.
This is funny, coming from someone who followed this statement up with this:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.
They learned the hard way what happens if the wrong stuff gets in the wrong pipes, they are just being careful now.
So it looks like Hillary is getting the rug pulled from under her again.
If Clinton loses tomorrow, does she go into panic mode? Does she pander to young people by promising free gak?
Not sure what to make of the GOP right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the Bernie Sanders supporters here I have a question,
I agree the US needs reform when it comes to wall street, but some of his other economic plans do not seem realistic.
Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?
To what extent would that result in staying here or taking a short term hit by moving shop overseas? Lower taxes, lower minimum wage probably less legal boundaries. That will result in a loss of jobs and tax revenue which was needed to fund a lot of the promises he has made.
I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.
Granted, This based on my very limited knowledge of economics and would love if someone could educate me on the matter of Bernie's tax plan and how it would impact American jobs and growth.
Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?
The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.
The idea that paying actual corporate taxes and "living wages" will drive business out of the US is simply a scare tactic used by people who, for whatever reason, love Trickle Down economics.
Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.
Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.
It's the trifecta!
Then how do you explain the poor people who are in love with the idea... guys like my next door neighbor are definitely NOT 1% card carrying members.
Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?
The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.
The idea that paying actual corporate taxes and "living wages" will drive business out of the US is simply a scare tactic used by people who, for whatever reason, love Trickle Down economics.
So the idea is, the Americans, the consumers that we are, would spend more money on goods and services if there was more money in their pockets?
Not against a living wage. I guess my inner liberal says if you bust your ass and work 40+ hours in a week you should be able to live comfortably, shouldn't have to worry about food or medicine and all that. My inner libertarian says you earn what you are worth. Perhaps not realistic?
However, I don't want to see a major economic crisis or companies leaving in droves. Again, not saying this will happen, just a concern.
In the end, I want what is best for everyone and have no clue how you go about doing that.
Piston Honda wrote: I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.
Yeah, I like Sanders as well, and agree his policies are way beyond what's practical. Thing is, though, I think Sanders knows that, and he's just saying it anyway. A look at his health policy is probably the biggest tell, there's no way anyone involved in that document honestly believed in his final costings.
I think his whole campaign started as a means to change the Overton window, and he never really expected to get this far. This left him with a choice of moderating his positions back to something that's sensible, and maybe even achievable, or just saying feth it and telling people as many incredible things as possible. Sanders chose the latter, and now we've got talk of a $15 minimum wage and a 77% top tax rate.
I can't blame him, really. After all, look how far Trump went with his hundred foot wall that the Mexican government would pay for, and however many clowns one-upping each other on tough they would be on ISIL.
Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.
It's the trifecta!
Then how do you explain the poor people who are in love with the idea... guys like my next door neighbor are definitely NOT 1% card carrying members.
IDK.
How do you explain the urban poor in Ancient Rome constantly elected landed elites to represent the interests of landed elites? Or poor white southerns with no slaves fighting a war to protect slavery? Or Japanese Americans and African Americans becoming some of the most decorated soldiers in the US Army history during WWII? Poor white conservatives die hardly against the welfare and support programs that would directly make their lives better?
These things find ways to invest people into ideologies and political positions that are not necessarily going to benefit them. You cater to the things that are directly in their interests to draw them into positions that are not. For example, the Republicans use their religious rhetoric to appeal to non-wealthy whites, and then get those same people to support pro-rich politics at their own expense. Likewise, the Democrats use social justice and talk of equality to draw in urban minority groups and special interests, then do the exact same thing as the Republicans. It's just what happens in politics. Money is power, but in democracy you need the huddled masses to get anything done, so you find some way to play both sides.
So the idea is, the Americans, the consumers that we are, would spend more money on goods and services if there was more money in their pockets?
It's a basic truth that has been correlated by numerous studies: people with less money spend more money. Think about it for a second and it makes sense. Let's say a guy has a job where he wears work boots. Now, he could shell out 100 bucks for a pair that will last him 6 months, or he can pay 40 for a pair that will last 2. Depending on his wages, he probably only has the money for the 40 dollar pair, which means in 2 months, he will have to spend another 40 bucks, and another 40 in 2 months after that. So in the six months, based on cash in hand, he would have spent 120 bucks for footwear, when if he'd had more money to begin with, he could have spent 100, and pocketed that "remaining" 20 for another expense or even luxury item.
The money spending really comes into its own when you look at the middle class.... Think about it. It's the middle class typically who's trading vehicles on average ever 3 years. Middle class families are the ones buying boats, boat trailers, hunting and fishing licenses, hunting and fishing gear every year. Tents, sleeping bags rated for sleeping on the moon, Air Jordans, etc. etc. It's the middle class to buoys the business of most restaurants; the ones like Outback, Shenanigans, Longhorn, Red Lobster, etc.
In short, everyone earning a wage having more money is a net plus for the economy because it's the bottom end of the spectrum that drives a national economy (when it's not a war time economy of course)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.
In terms of respectable economists, then no, there really is no-one saying 'everyone would make more money'. The conclusion is not only extremely unorthodox, that level of confidence is nothing like what any reasonable economist should be showing on minimum wage right now.
Recent studies have found that minimum wage increases typically have no observable effect on employment. Now that's quite a significant finding in itself, because it's been long maintained that the question of minimum wage was how many jobs it would cost. Studies have found some instances where local employment increases, but that takes some pretty peculiar circumstances.
But the research so far is small, and pretty limited. And more importantly, it's based on the actual wage increases we've seen in the US, and no increase studied has been anywhere near $15.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I can't blame him, really. After all, look how far Trump went with his hundred foot wall that the Mexican government would pay for, and however many clowns one-upping each other on tough they would be on ISIL.
That is true. And it's interesting to note how Trump has moved the window, some of the stuff put out by the other candidates has been incredible, but with Trump out there talking about torturing and banning muslims, it somehow sounds so much more reasonable.
In terms of respectable economists, then no, there really is no-one saying 'everyone would make more money'.
So, Robert Reich isn't a respectable economist? Every video of his that I've seen him talking about the %15/hr wage, that's been one of his prime points; a higher minimum wage is a net gain for the economy as a whole.
As far as the rest of it, I'd say that Nick Hanauer knows what he's talking about, even though you are right in that it's pretty unorthodox compared to the status quo.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: It's a basic truth that has been correlated by numerous studies: people with less money spend more money.
Sort of. It's true that the less you earn, the more you spend on consumption. But money that is saved doesn't disappear. Saved funds are put in banks, who in turn lend that money to investors, who then spend it on capital projects. Through the magic of interest rates, savings and investment will clear (long to medium term, more or less, in normal economic conditions).
So while the poor spend more of their money boots and everything else, the money saved by richer people is still spent in the economy, albeit by another party through an intermediary bank.
And yeah, I figure it's that 'normal economic' conditions thing you want to jump on. Because the economy is crappy right now, and savings are only just starting to clear, so interest rates are only just start to head north of zero. But crappy economies are a passing thing, so it would be a huge mistake to back a permanent change in economic policy based on what effect it will have in the current economy, because these are unusual economic circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, Robert Reich isn't a respectable economist? Every video of his that I've seen him talking about the %15/hr wage, that's been one of his prime points; a higher minimum wage is a net gain for the economy as a whole.
I know Reich argues for $15, but I've never heard him or anyone else of reasonable standing say that a minimum wage of $15 will make everyone more money. It's the kind of open ended speculation that you really only see among pundits pretending to be economists.
As far as the rest of it, I'd say that Nick Hanauer knows what he's talking about, even though you are right in that it's pretty unorthodox compared to the status quo.
He's also not an economist. That doesn't mean he should be automatically dismissed because a lot of interesting economic ideas start outside of economics. And if he's the guy I'm thinking of from some TEDtalks he is actually pretty interesting. But it terms of actual quantitative work, making a formal prediction based on a policy change, it really does have to be left to actual, trained economists.
He's also not an economist. That doesn't mean he should be automatically dismissed because a lot of interesting economic ideas start outside of economics. And if he's the guy I'm thinking of from some TEDtalks he is actually pretty interesting. But it terms of actual quantitative work, making a formal prediction based on a policy change, it really does have to be left to actual, trained economists.
Yes, Hanauer has done some TED talks. And while anecdotal evidence, he claims in one of them that in companies he has an interest in, in the Seattle area, including his restaurants, they raised wages and saw an increase in overall revenue. Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, however it does suggest that what I've been saying about people who make more money spend more.
The thing I have issue with, is how I've seen a number of articles flat out stating that Costco's business model is "guaranteed" to fail, and yet, after over 20 years, they are still going strong. While it's only one company, perhaps the "standard model" is flawed, and not the business? By that I mean, perhaps it is the notion that Costco's founders are somehow wrong. That the standard notion of paying people like crap to rake in as much money at the top as you can, isn't actually the best business model to have.
Remember even Home Depot (the US home improvement big box store) was founded on a similar "non-standard" principle, and it faced some rough years when the founding CEO left, and they brought in a profit-margins CEO who moved them to a more typical big box retail model. When Home Depot was founded, they had the idea that retired construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. would come out of retirement to work there, provide sage advice to that Handy Home-wrecker who didn't want to pay for something he could "do himself" on whatever project they had in mind. New guy comes in, and gets rid of all the old workers for the more cost efficient retail worker, and the chain lost some of what made it what it was.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And while anecdotal evidence, he claims in one of them that in companies he has an interest in, in the Seattle area, including his restaurants, they raised wages and saw an increase in overall revenue. Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, however it does suggest that what I've been saying about people who make more money spend more.
The issue isn’t just that it’s anecdotal, the underlying model doesn’t really make any sense. The only way you’d see the effect he’s proposing is if the employees themselves spent a large amount of their own income in their own restaurant, and were a large part of the customer base. That's a bit like a population of sharks surviving by eating themselves.
A more reasonable explanation would be something like people hearing the restaurant was paying staff well, and so it gained some goodwill. Unfortunately that’s an effect that doesn’t scale to a whole economy. Either that or it was just one of those things, revenue went up for other, unknown reasons. But it wasn’t because employee staff were spending all their extra money in the restaurant they work in.
The thing I have issue with, is how I've seen a number of articles flat out stating that Costco's business model is "guaranteed" to fail, and yet, after over 20 years, they are still going strong. While it's only one company, perhaps the "standard model" is flawed, and not the business?
I think it isn’t so much that the standard model is flawed, the flaw is in the assumption that there can be only one kind of viable business model. There’s a lot of bad business advice, and most of it falls in to two kinds – dismissing things because they don’t suit their own ideology, or because they don’t suit the management flavours of the month. Costco falls foul of both of those for most investment gurus.
Really, the fact that everyone was saying retail had to compete on cost and have as low a cost model as possible, should have told everyone there was space for someone to do something totally different. Which is exactly what Costco did.
Remember even Home Depot (the US home improvement big box store) was founded on a similar "non-standard" principle, and it faced some rough years when the founding CEO left, and they brought in a profit-margins CEO who moved them to a more typical big box retail model. When Home Depot was founded, they had the idea that retired construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. would come out of retirement to work there, provide sage advice to that Handy Home-wrecker who didn't want to pay for something he could "do himself" on whatever project they had in mind. New guy comes in, and gets rid of all the old workers for the more cost efficient retail worker, and the chain lost some of what made it what it was.
"If you're long-term oriented, customer interests and shareholder interests are aligned." Jeff Bezos, the amazon guy.
Saving wages can look great for short term figures, but if the knowledge base of that staff was how you differentiated from other stores, that can cost you so much more in the long term.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.
This is funny, coming from someone who followed this statement up with this:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
No one claimed Cruz was an undercover priest. What was claimed, and further backed up my the multitude of things Cruz says is that he wants this country legislated using his holy book. Of course we can just pretend he doesn't say those things, which clearly you and Whembly are more than happy to do.
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
What he wants isn't "fringe" and he certainly isn't alone in his views in this current crop of candidates. Marco Rubio isn't much different in this regard, and a handful of losers that have already dropped out were just as bad or worse (Jindal, Huckabee, etc.). The only thing that sets Cruz apart is his willingness and pride in courting looney toons while sending his old man out to stump for him.
But please, go ahead and continue to look foolish by equating this the 9/11 thrutherism.
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
No one claimed Cruz was an undercover priest. What was claimed, and further backed up my the multitude of things Cruz says is that he wants this country legislated using his holy book. Of course we can just pretend he doesn't say those things, which clearly you and Whembly are more than happy to do.
I pretended he didn't say that? Really? I'm sure you can show when I did such a thing because I have no recollection of that
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
What he wants isn't "fringe" and he certainly isn't alone in his views in this current crop of candidates. Marco Rubio isn't much different in this regard, and a handful of losers that have already dropped out were just as bad or worse (Jindal, Huckabee, etc.). The only thing that sets Cruz apart is his willingness and pride in courting looney toons while sending his old man out to stump for him.
But please, go ahead and continue to look foolish by equating this the 9/11 thrutherism.
You're the one who posted the secret ordination videos. Instead of acknowledging that a theocracy is next to impossible to establish in America you continued the fear mongering and doubled down. You rightly got called out on it, and it was jokingly equated to Birthers and Truthers. Someone here is looking foolish, but it is not I.
Saving money does not help the economy...It's the exact opposite and why the economy seems to be getting worse. What helps is spending, Which raising the minimum wage would do.
If the money goes into the top tier...What do they do? Invest it by buying stocks. Unless this is an IPO, that isn't a real investment to help the company but rather just giving money to someone else who will invest the money in a different stock. It's almost a pyramid scheme. None of this money goes back into the economy to raise demand for consumption spending.
Someone on the lower end of the spectrum will spend the money, which leads to companies needing more employees to cover the demand, which leads to those employees having more money to spend , etc etc etc.
A higher minimum wage won't scare companies away to other countries any more than the current minimum wage does. The minimum wage is already a lot lower other places than here so if the companies were going to move, they will. Not to mention, the US economy is primarily service-oriented. That means that most people have jobs because they are needed to help people in the US. That sort of job won't go away.
Of course, instead of a minimum wage increase, they could always go with a cap on executive salaries in relation to the lowest paid employee of the company. Make it so that CEO's can't make more than 50 times the lowest wage paid to someone working for the company and suddenly the employees will get paid more. Either that, or have a guaranteed income and get rid of the minimum wage, welfare, and social security.
Piston Honda wrote: I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.
Yeah, I like Sanders as well, and agree his policies are way beyond what's practical. Thing is, though, I think Sanders knows that, and he's just saying it anyway. A look at his health policy is probably the biggest tell, there's no way anyone involved in that document honestly believed in his final costings.
I think his whole campaign started as a means to change the Overton window, and he never really expected to get this far. This left him with a choice of moderating his positions back to something that's sensible, and maybe even achievable, or just saying feth it and telling people as many incredible things as possible. Sanders chose the latter, and now we've got talk of a $15 minimum wage and a 77% top tax rate.
So you are saying Sanders needs to land on an aircraft carrier with a big banner that reads "Mission Accomplished"?
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
Maybe they will make us here in Michigan wear a monitor around our waist checking to make sure there is only outgoing traffic? I understand the government needs to keep working, but really? You needed to pass this of all things? Not fix our roads? Because before Flint, our roads were still in need of repair and I am sure Flint is no exception either. Anyway...
1. Economics: In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone believes will help the economy, or what will work or what will not work. The corporations and special interests will continue to buy off the politicians in order to continue making money for themselves, and the politicians are too well insulated (they're rich already, they're on the political gravy train for life, etc.) from the consequences their actions will have on the economy that they don't care.
2. Ted Cruz/Theocracy: Yes, "theocracy" is largely misused, but it gets the point across. The man revels in it, he doesn't hide it. Rubio, however, at least does keep it quieter, and would tone it down in the general election. Ted Cruz, however, has proven to double down on anything every time, no matter what.
3. Michigan's sodomy law: You would think that, in 2016, they just might know better than to pull this kind of crap. Don't they get that, in the age of the Internet, this kind of things makes instant news everywhere? Now it gets to be fodder for the presidential candidates. I understand that they think they're being sneaky with it. Or maybe they intend to use it as an "extra" penalty on top of other crimes (example: rapist also forced victim to have oral/anal sex, so that's another crime to charge the rapist with), but that's still not the way to go about it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: 1. Economics: In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone believes will help the economy, or what will work or what will not work. The corporations and special interests will continue to buy off the politicians in order to continue making money for themselves, and the politicians are too well insulated (they're rich already, they're on the political gravy train for life, etc.) from the consequences their actions will have on the economy that they don't care.
This isn't entirely true. The US being a democracy, politicians need the common (not rich) generally to get elected. The issue isn't that they're insulated from the rest of us, it's that the rest of us don't give a gak about profiteering and corruption for it to make a difference in elections. Part of that is that we pay almost no attention to local politics, where almost all national politicians get their start. local politics are rife with corruption, absolute idiocy that makes Congress seem almost intelligent, and business patronage. We complain about politicians sucking, but we don't really do anything to address how they end up sucking and that starts at local politics, and is furthered by the voting populations own indifference.
Business and special interests can only buy off politicians so long as the rest of the population (who massively outnumbers them in voting power), allows them to. Politicians have no reason to behave any differently if it has no effect on their chances to get elected.
LANSING, MI — Internet, please take note. Yes, it's technically illegal under state law to have anal or oral sex in Michigan, but that antiquated law is not enforced and is nullified by federal law to the contrary.
Nonetheless, the blogosphere rediscovered that archaic bit of status quo this week after old language in a new bill targeted at animal abusers prompted widespread social media outrage at the Michigan legislature for trying to ban certain kinds of nookie when they should be figuring out how to help the people of Flint get safe drinking water.
Senate Bill 219, sponsored by Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, is part of a bipartisan bill package called "Logan's Law," which is meant to keep animal abusers from being able to adopt pets by giving Michigan shelters access to a database called the Internet Criminal History Access Tool (ICHAT).
The legislature has been trying to pass "Logan's Law" — so named for a husky that was tortured and killed with acid — for several years. A proposed statewide abuser registry that was considered too unwieldy tripped up earlier versions.
Coupled with S.B. 220, the two-bill package passed the Senate on Jan. 28 by a vote of 37 to 1 and was referred to the House judiciary committee.
Unfortunately, because S.B. 219 amends the existing state penal code, it includes antiquated, non-enforced language that says any person committing "the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal" could be convicted of a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
The bill passed the Senate with that language, which has been in the Logan's Law bill for several years now because Michigan is one of more than a dozen states with a sodomy ban still on the books, an archaic 85-year-old law that's part of the state penal code, Act 328 of 1931.
The Internet soon took notice. On Feb. 5, the New Civil Rights Movement blog wrote a piece headlined "Michigan Senate Passes Bill Saying Sodomy Is A Felony Punishable By 15 Years in Prison," which sparked a flurry of Facebook shares, tweets, aggregations and repackaged stories about lawmakers reaffirming an unconstitutional ban on anal sex.
"It's outrageous stuff," said Jones. "Totally false."
Although Michigan does technically outlaw sodomy, it's a meaningless restriction. Federal law trumps state law and in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed nationwide sodomy laws that criminalized consensual homosexual sex when deciding the case Lawrence v. Texas.
Just last year, the high court followed that up by ruling the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
"Many of these old laws are not removed, left on the books and are meaningless," said Jones. "Judges and attorneys know they are meaningless. The police know you can't enforce a ban on consensual adult sodomy."
So, why is the ban still on the books? Basically, because no lawmaker thus far has the courage to try and remove the word "with mankind" from the law.
"If you were to take the word 'mankind' out of Michigan sodomy laws, that would affect sodomy as a rape, sodomy on children," Jones said. "I'm certainly not about to legalize pedophilia."
Getting into the weeds on unenforceable sodomy language threatens a bill that lawmakers have been pushing for several years, said Jones. Striking arcane laws from the books is not the task at hand right now.
"If there's some legislator that wants to take a dozen unconstitutional Michigan laws and put up a bill to try and get them removed, that's fine. We'll debate it and see what happens," he said. "I'm not going to let them hijack a bill protecting animals because they are trying to score political points."
The House has not yet scheduled a hearing on S.B. 219. Jones said the last effort to enact the Logan's Law bills passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.
"I suspect the House will easily pass them again."
Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Macomb County, said the House could strip the sodomy language from the bill during the legislative process, which he'd like to see, although he acknowledged amending that section of penal code might be more complicated than it seems at first blush.
Bieda, who is sponsoring S.B. 220, said "we're trying to focus on this Logan's Law issue, but that doesn't mean we couldn't take care of the other issue as well."
Rep. Jon Hoadley, D-Kalamazoo, said the legislature could have avoided this distraction by cleaning up the outdated provision in penal code 13 years ago. He said there's support in the House for tackling animal abuse and the outdated sodomy language at the same time.
"I hope the judiciary committee sends the full House a good bill to vote on."
Garret Ellison covers business, environment & the Great Lakes for MLive Media Group. Email him at gellison@mlive.com or follow on Twitter & Instagram
Heck, my home state once had the Exterminatus Order on all Mormons up till 1976. That's still in living memory... not that it was used to justify hypothectical killings, but still.
whembly wrote: Every states has weird archaic laws on the books.
Heck, my home state once had the Exterminatus Order on all Mormons up till 1976. That's still in living memory... not that it was used to justify hypothectical killings, but still.
Yes states do. Although, Michigan just took an unconstitutional, archaic, law and recycled it under the notion of applying it to bestiality. They didn't bother to change the wording from it's older version but instead just copy and pasted into this new law.
This ends up leaving too much of a gray area and undefined borders.
This is the clause in question with highlights to the key points:
A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years.
Crime against nature is an archaic reference to sodomy and oral sex.
They could just remove the with mankind and it keeps it as they intended, a law against bestiality. But no, they choose not to.
While this doesn't change that it is illegal to make anti-sodomy laws, it doesn't mean they won't try to find a way.
The CNN Exit Polls in New Hampshire are pretty interesting to look at.
Sanders got 65% of the male vote, but also 53% of the female vote.
Sanders also got 59% of the white vote, whereas Hillary got 52% of the non-white vote.
Sanders won all age groups except 65+, which went to Hillary at 59%. But he got 85% of 18-29, 65% of 30-44, and 51% of 45-64.
Sanders won all income categories who make less than $200,000, with Hillary picking up 55% of the higher income group.
They split the democratic vote 50/50, but Independents who voted in the democratic primary went 72% for Sanders.
skyth wrote: Saving money does not help the economy...It's the exact opposite and why the economy seems to be getting worse. What helps is spending, Which raising the minimum wage would do.
No, that’s completely wrong. As I already said, savings don’t just disappear. They are placed in banks, who then use those funds to lend to investors. What is saved is then invested.
There’s a complicating wrinkle when savings are so large and investment demand so small that savings exceed demand, even when interest rates are zero, but that’s a thing that’s happened twice in more than 100 years.
If the money goes into the top tier...What do they do? Invest it by buying stocks. Unless this is an IPO, that isn't a real investment to help the company but rather just giving money to someone else who will invest the money in a different stock. It's almost a pyramid scheme. None of this money goes back into the economy to raise demand for consumption spending.
No, that doesn’t work. Just think about it. In order for there to be a buyer of a stock, there has to be a seller, yeah? And sure, maybe that seller is going to buy another stock, but then he’s going to have to be buying off another seller. Sooner or later, somewhere down the chain the money is going to end up with someone who is selling because they want to buy real goods.
As such, in terms of aggregate demand, stock trading has no impact.
A higher minimum wage won't scare companies away to other countries any more than the current minimum wage does. The minimum wage is already a lot lower other places than here so if the companies were going to move, they will.
Sort of. Minimum wage is a cost of production, but it isn’t the only cost of production. So a straight comparison of minimum wage is useful, but not a complete picture. For a given business, given labour costs, other input costs, and productivity rates, the US might be the best place to manufacture (or at least good enough), even with labour costs 10 times what they are in Vietnam. But if rates move to 15 times then they will move production. Another business might not move even at $20, while some other business could have found the move justified when the state minimum wage went to $10.
Not to mention, the US economy is primarily service-oriented. That means that most people have jobs because they are needed to help people in the US. That sort of job won't go away.
This is true.
Of course, instead of a minimum wage increase, they could always go with a cap on executive salaries in relation to the lowest paid employee of the company.
They’ve tried caps on executive salaries, it didn’t work. Between share options and bonus schemes it’s pretty much impossible to cap remuneration.
Probably the best answer is to properly tax higher incomes, especially incomes hidden through share programs and the like. Then take that money and expand the IITC in to a full blown living wage, payable to everyone as a base income.
Ouze wrote: So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?
As long as Trump is leading the Republican polls, then Sanders' unelectability is less of an issue. So this was big night for Sanders, not just because he delivered the result he needed to, but because Trump got the result he needed as well.
EDIT
To clarify – I’m talking just about how long Sanders can continue to hang around and be seen as viable. I still think something truly incredible would have to happen for him in lots of different states for him to come close to beating Clinton.
Ouze wrote: So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?
Sounds about right.
If he sticks around another month I will at least get to vote for him.
I'm just happy that the Oklahoma Democrats opened up their primary to independents this year.
I expect to see him on the ballot on Virginia's primary, which is March 1. I was also happy to hear that the Virginia election officials rescinded the Republican Party's "loyalty statement."
Isn't that what US, conservative ideology posits as the end goal for people?
No.
Really? Because I always thought that pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps, while simultaneously supporting policies which make it harder to do so was underwritten by the notion that, someday, a person would "make it". That is, become something more than a pleb.
Tannhauser42 wrote: How many months now have we been saying the same about Trump?
That’s true, though there’s one important difference. With Trump people have been expecting, or hoping, that his polling numbers would change, his 30% of the vote would disappear. Whereas with Sanders his defeat comes if the polling numbers stay exactly as they are, in most states he’s also polling about 30%, but that puts him well behind Clinton.
Polls fluctuate, especially primary polls, of course. A poll last month doesn’t mean a hell of a lot for a primary held next month, and all that. Just pointing out the difference between the expectation of Trump’s defeat, and expectation of Sanders’.
And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.
And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.
Just last week, at my local GW, there was a rather loud guy who apparently the manager knew... so he's a "regular" or at the very least, a recurring customer.... At one point during the conversation... ironically it was a conversation about comic book villains or star wars or something, he randomly chimes in, "Yep, that's why I'm voting for Trump... Fething Obama hates the US, Feth Obama, blah blah blah usual right wing Tea Bagger anti-obama rhetoric"
While his back was turned to us, still on this rant, the manager and I made I contact with that shrug of "wtf, dude"
So yeah... While most of us expected Trumps support to have fallen away by now, he really is an indictment of the still present levels of crazy, stupid, and racist people in the country. I think that in contrast, Sanders' campaign, "aided" mostly by the young, 18-29 or so age ranges, whom many people would still consider idealistic and naive, shows that while some may indeed by naive and idealistic, we've paid enough attention to the goings on around us, politically, economically, etc. and "we" don't like what we see, and Sanders delivers a message that would be a clear change from that.
And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.
Just last week, at my local GW, there was a rather loud guy who apparently the manager knew... so he's a "regular" or at the very least, a recurring customer.... At one point during the conversation... ironically it was a conversation about comic book villains or star wars or something, he randomly chimes in, "Yep, that's why I'm voting for Trump... Fething Obama hates the US, Feth Obama, blah blah blah usual right wing Tea Bagger anti-obama rhetoric"
While his back was turned to us, still on this rant, the manager and I made I contact with that shrug of "wtf, dude"
So yeah... While most of us expected Trumps support to have fallen away by now, he really is an indictment of the still present levels of crazy, stupid, and racist people in the country. I think that in contrast, Sanders' campaign, "aided" mostly by the young, 18-29 or so age ranges, whom many people would still consider idealistic and naive, shows that while some may indeed by naive and idealistic, we've paid enough attention to the goings on around us, politically, economically, etc. and "we" don't like what we see, and Sanders delivers a message that would be a clear change from that.
My thought:
Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.
We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.
Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.
In Australia we’ve seen the rise of PUP, based around Clive Palmer. He’s like a slightly dorkier, much less racist version of Trump. On economic issues he’s much like Trump, with a bunch of ideas that are more right wing than left wing, but are more populist than anything else. It looks like his impact on politics was a one time deal, most people they got elected to parliament have left the party and become independents, his party’s appeal in polls has faded, and on a personal level Palmer may possibly be going bankrupt.
There’s also been the formation of a few explicitly racist parties, and the votes they’ve gotten have been pretty shameful, but not enough to gain any power in federal or state parliament.
We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.
Not just Trump but Sanders also. I’m not saying Sanders is bad like Trump is bad, just that both Sanders and Trump are riding a wave of anti-establishment feeling. In the two parties it’s playing out very differently, in a way that I think is quite telling about where each party is at.
Within the Democrats there appears a feeling that progress has been too little, too slow. Wall St reforms weren’t enough, healthcare reform should have been single payer and so on. Clinton has inherited the mantle of steady, achievable progress that was more or less established by her husband and then refined by Obama. But among the base, especially younger voters, there’s a demand for more, sooner. And those people really like what Sanders is saying.
In the Republican party it seems quite different. The standard, ‘establishment’ position has been a mix of pro-business policies and conservative/religious social positions, with a bit of dog whistle racism thrown in for good measure. Trump has tipped that on its head, running really aggressively on racism, while putting up populist economic positions that are often in direct odds with Republican orthodox positions. It’s been quite interesting to see a Republican talk about improving social security and see his numbers improve.
Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’? Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing? So I might be reading way more in to this than is really there. But if his actual policies are cutting through, it says some interesting things about where the values of the Republican base are really at.
sebster wrote: Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’?
They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).
Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing?
Definitely more of a cult of personality thing. Just listen to what his supporters say on TV: "He's not scared of political correctness!" and, "He can't be influenced by anyone!" and, "He's going to stop the 'pussification' of America!" and, "He tells it like it is!"
The only actual "policy" his supporters every really talk about is rounding up and deporting all of the illegal aliens, which of course is impossible to actually do.
I witnessed the real side of Donald Trump a few years back, when he was building his golf course in Scotland, and trying to bully people into leaving their homes, even when they didn't want to sell. Trump tried every dirty trick in the book to get those people out.
Thankfully, they stuck to their guns, but Trump burnt a lot of bridges in this part of the world.
Most people on dakka are probably aware of the 'real' Trump, but I'm mentioning this as I feel it's important that Americans should be aware of these things before they vote. Trump is nothing more than a loudmouth bully, and IMO, would spell disaster for the USA if God forbide, he gets the keys to 1600.
sebster wrote:
Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’? Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing? So I might be reading way more in to this than is really there. But if his actual policies are cutting through, it says some interesting things about where the values of the Republican base are really at.
I just glanced at it, but the New York Times this morning had exit polling showing that 65% of New Hampshire Republicans who voted for Trump "most valued" the quality of "telling it like it is."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).
I also live in northern Virginia (Old Town, to be exact), and my experience has been markedly different.
This area isn't just trending blue, by the way; it's deep blue. Its growth is the only thing turning Virginia blue in turn. NOVA and Richmond go blue, everywhere else is red.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).
I also live in northern Virginia (Old Town, to be exact), and my experience has been markedly different.
This area isn't just trending blue, by the way; it's deep blue. Its growth is the only thing turning Virginia blue in turn. NOVA and Richmond go blue, everywhere else is red.
By Old Town, do you mean Alexandria? If so, there is a huge difference between that city and where I live in Loudoun County. The 8th District (which covers Alexandria) has been Democrat for years, while Loudoun was firmly Republican for last fifty years until Obama won in 2008 (the only exception was 1964, when LBJ won). Even now, the county is run primarily by Republicans.
Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.
We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.
I would like there to be more than two mainstream parties to choose from, so that way people can vote for a party/candidate that actually matches their politics better and don't have to worry so much about other voices in the party taking over after the election. I do not see this changing anytime soon though. For either party to break into smaller groups would had the keys to this country to the other group.
The City of Alexandria not just blue but a deep, deep blue. Some cities and counties down in the Hampton Roads regions are blue too. Virginia Beach is pink (mostly Republican, but enough Democrat votes to turn the color a light shade) though.
Red or Blue, Right or Left, there are racists on both ends. I'm only referring to "whites" in this regard. I'm not getting into the other colors can be racist issue.
I live near Mount Vernon (home of George Washington) just south of Alexandria. There are a large number of white folk some of whom, when they think we're alone and they don't know my wife is Asian, let down their guard a bit and go full racist at times. It is interesting how the focus over the decades has changed from complaining and joking about blacks to complaining about other dark skinned people or sometimes even Asians. At work, in my office there is a reason I have many pictures of my wife and kids in prominent places. Stops the stupid from coming out, at least full on racist stupid. Although some assume I'm a liberal because of my marriage choice, which to me is just as racist because of the implication that I married to show some sort of liberal support.
I make it a point to people on the edge of talking stupid or to try and bring them back that we're all Americans. If you don't think so, talk to some 9/11 survivors or anyone that's served overseas in the Military. Some might get racist between us but to outsiders an American is an American and to many non-Americans we represent evil irregardless of the color of our skin.
Back on topic, the Virginia primaries will be fun to see play out. The people I know who've expressed their opinions are all over the list of candidates. Far right wing loves Cruz, far left is obviously for Bernie, Clinton is VERY popular, Clinton is VERY hated as well by a number of women I know too.Some would say they will vote for Bernie in the primary say they will vote Republican in the national election if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, unless it's Cruz on the Republican ticket. Trump is probably popular but I don't know many of those supporters. Given the choice I know if pushed, my Republican friends say they will rally behind anyone on the Republican ticket if Clinton wins the nomination. Alternately, if Cruz gets the Republican nod, it will light a fire and energize the liberal base in ways I don't think the Republicans understand. To liberals (that I've talked to) Cruz is a much larger threat to America than Trump could ever be.
Both Cruz and Trump would galvanize the opposition.
It's really extraordinary how Rubio self-destructed in that debate. There's been harsh press about his nervousness and anxiety, inexperience, empty suit, etc, and I dont see him overcoming it. He's done in this race.
jasper76 wrote: Both Cruz and Trump would galvanize the opposition.
It's really extraordinary how Rubio self-destructed in that debate. There's been harsh press about his nervousness and anxiety, inexperience, empty suit, etc, and I dont see him overcoming it. He's done in this race.
Sanders and Clinton would galvanize the opposition as well, though.
And yeah, it's a shame about Rubio. I officially don't have a favorite anymore. Might as well start stockpiling Trump bumper stickers.
I really hope Rubio can get himself back on track.
Regarding Trump/Cruz vs. Clinton/Sanders; Galvanizing Republicans and right leaning independents won't overcome motivated Democrats and liberals at the voting booth. It doesn't work the other way around. Motivated Republicans vs. motivated Democrats = Democrat win I suspect.
Democrats have learned that lesson well. I think they'd be thrilled to have either Trump or Cruz running against them. I'd prefer a Rubio or Kasich on the Republican side, then I wouldn't feel like I'd have to hold my nose to vote.
I'm not a supporter, but I was pleasantly surprised to see Kasich do a bit better. He's stayed on an optimisitic message, and I'd rather have an optimistic leader, and one that actually seems to like Americans. Up until now, I doubted if his approach would have any substantive appeal in the primaries.
Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.
I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.
Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.
I would like there to be more than two mainstream parties to choose from, so that way people can vote for a party/candidate that actually matches their politics better and don't have to worry so much about other voices in the party taking over after the election. I do not see this changing anytime soon though. For either party to break into smaller groups would had the keys to this country to the other group.
While I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people want more than two parties. Personally, I think I'd like a political landscape/legislative body that looked somewhat like Germany's politics. When I was there, there were a bunch of parties, ranging from conservative to liberal, there was a green party, a pirate party, more over socialist/communist party, etc.
Each party that gained a certain number/percentage of votes had a number of seats in their version of the house. It may not be a perfectly balanced system, but I'd like to think that everyone has their voice represented and heard in the legislature. What we have today means that if you're a person who has views that run a bit contrary to "party lines" your voice is most definitely not represented in congress (much less if you're a poor person, you definitely aren't represented), and you're often ostracized as a RINO or a DINO. The problem I have with the RINO/DINO view, is that it should be entirely possible to believe in "democrat" views on social issues, while siding more "republican" in financial matters, and vice versa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.
Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.
Yep, as in my example above, most Trump "supporters" I've conversed with are basically "Obama is bad! At least Trump loves 'Murica!!"
Calling it like it is, one of the other favorites of Trump supporters. Of course when you point out how his "calling it like it is," is mostly made of flat lies and completely unfounded "facts" they just burn the goalpost down and run lol.
Being against Trump is the only thing that has ever lost me social media friends lol. Either they disapprove of their echo chamber disturbance or feel like I'm insulting their intelligence. For which I disavow that feeling by directly insulting it. Funny how when you, "call it like it is," with Trump supporters or don't act PC, they get bent out of shape.
There are no Clinton supporters on my social media so I never get the chance lambast her . Its just Bernie, Trump and Cruz lol.
BrotherGecko wrote: I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.
Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.
That's not the worst quality to have if you want to get elected. I recall lofty but vague talk and no political accomplishments of note working out pretty well for the junior senator from Illinois.
Sword Of Caliban wrote: Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.
I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.
Sword Of Caliban wrote: Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.
Can you name any proposed policies of his that appeal to you?
While I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people want more than two parties. Personally, I think I'd like a political landscape/legislative body that looked somewhat like Germany's politics. When I was there, there were a bunch of parties, ranging from conservative to liberal, there was a green party, a pirate party, more over socialist/communist party, etc.
Germany has two main poltitical parties, a left and a center one, who make up for the largest part of politics and currently, I kid you not, rule together. There is a multitude of other parties, but don't get blinded. Die Grünen aka the green party's main purpose is giving votes to the SPD, the left party, and the FDP, the liberal party, only serves to boost the center party's (CDU) votes. There's an extreme left party (Die Linke) and a rather recent right party (AfD), yet the former plays little to no role, fortunately, and the latter became a stronger force mainly because of the refugee crisis and Germany's apathy in regards to it with people feeling helpless and exploited.
So...yes, there are quite a few parties, but it is far from being as pluralistic as you might think it is. It always boils down to the left (SPD) or center (CDU).
Regarding US politics, if Trump seriously gets president, I'll throw a bonus payment to all people working for me. It will be absolutely hilarious and in the long run, he's the far better pick than any leftist. That goes without saing, tho.
A multi-party system would be a good thing in the USA, if it still had the parliamentary system. Without a parliamentary system, it probably wouldn't work.
American history is littered with 3rd 'parties,' that fell by the wayside, and most of them tended to be single issue anyway.
Sword Of Caliban wrote: Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.
I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.
UKIP stole their thunder years ago, though I admit, the Tories are trying their best to reclaim that mantle.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A multi-party system would be a good thing in the USA, if it still had the parliamentary system. Without a parliamentary system, it probably wouldn't work.
American history is littered with 3rd 'parties,' that fell by the wayside, and most of them tended to be single issue anyway.
We do have a lot of "unofficial" parties.
-Congressional Black Caucus
-Freedom Caucus
-Tea Party
-Chamber of Commerce
-etc...
So, while not a true parlimentarian system, there are many "factions" within each official party.
whembly wrote: Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.
The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).
The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.
I stand by my original prediction that the contest is Clinton's to lose.
Sanders has been speaking a lot about a universal healthcare system, with Britain being used as an example.
Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?
Because that's what happens in Britain. For historical and cultural reasons, the vast majority of people don't mind this. Hell, some people want to pay more, but would it go down well in the USA?
Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?
It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.
However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".
The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).
No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" at the cultural level yet.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?
It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.
However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".
The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).
No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.
The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.
America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.
But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.
Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.
Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.
And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.
Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.
In this case, political will needs to be of bi-partisan nature and not something like the how Obamacare went down. Hence, the supporters need to give up something big to the opposition to get them at the table.
America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.
That's actually a meaningless comparison as it's missing all sorts of context. Unless, you're opining that the military budget is too big and *could* be diverted to other programs.
But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.
Maybe... we'll see in November, eh?
Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.
Interesting. US Federal Government employs over 13 million people. UK has what... 64 million? The Feds basically employs the equivalence of ~20% of the entire UK population.
Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.
Another fun fact, Walmart employs 1.4 million people in the states... so Walmart is just a big as UK NHS!
And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.
Indeed. Or, just go Canada/AU model and nationalize the insurance industry (single-payor)... leaving the providers private.
Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.
eh... just look at Medicare or the VA. There's your "big government" in the industry.
It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.
Here's another option for you, Whembley: forget health insurance and take the British option of having the taxman take extra money from your income to pay for healthcare.
I'm fairly confident that the prospect of entrusting the IRS with more powers would be a popular move in your household
By Old Town, do you mean Alexandria? If so, there is a huge difference between that city and where I live in Loudoun County. The 8th District (which covers Alexandria) has been Democrat for years, while Loudoun was firmly Republican for last fifty years until Obama won in 2008 (the only exception was 1964, when LBJ won). Even now, the county is run primarily by Republicans.
I used to live in Loudon and I know exactly what you're talking about
Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.
Consul Scipio wrote: It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.
It works. Therefore in our unique American way, we must try everything else first.
IMO, that's the most important thing - finding a system that suits the USA. If you copy another nation, you've had it.
In Britain, our health service was born out of the destruction of WW2. The people rebuilding Britain wanted the sacrifice of the war years to mean something, so the government that got elected, was the Labour Party, who were socialist. They pledged to introduce universal health system, and they had no political opposition, because they won the election by a landslide.
Obviously, the USA has its own unique historical and cultural values.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.
I agree with most of this, but the advantage of being a huge employer is purchasing power.
Our health service, because of its size, can lay down the law to pharmaceutical companies and can purchase drugs and medicines for cheap. Imagine what an American NHS could do. Yes, it would be a behemoth, but it could do a ton of good by helping poor Americans with cheap, life saving drugs.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).
A similar thing happens to me. I own a small-business so people come in all the time and start talking about their R view points and just assume since I am a middle-age, white guy who runs a business I must be a rabid Republican too. They are very, very wrong.
Typically, I just listen and say something along the lines of. "Interesting, thanks for sharing. Anything else I can do for you?" It would be a waste of my time to try to confront them, and it would probably hurt my business in my deeply conservative town.
Consul Scipio wrote: It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.
It works. Therefore in our unique American way, we must try everything else first.
Switzerland and the USA are vastly different countries, the system also works because of Switzerland's citizen's immense wealth compared to other countries. As others already stated, the USA need to come up with an own system as it's a very unique country with a vast social gap.
Sword Of Caliban wrote: Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.
I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.
Yeah... y'all wouldn't want this to become reality:
Switzerland and the USA are vastly different countries, the system also works because of Switzerland's citizen's immense wealth compared to other countries. As others already stated, the USA need to come up with an own system as it's a very unique country with a vast social gap.
A more "pure" Bismark/German model, I think would work quite well in the US. Insurance "companies" as non-profit entities, I think, would go a long way to cutting the ridiculous costs associated currently with out healthcare.
Yes, I know that there is a certain level of strain in the German system today, but I think that having a "guild-based" health insurance, rather than what we have with company based systems would help the consumers.
CptJake wrote: Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.
In this case job creation would be just an additional bonus. American healthcare system is a disaster, Obamacare might have been a marginal improvement, but it didn't go nearly far enough. You guys the have most ineffective healthcare system in the world if we compare the money spent versus the health statistics. This is a fact. USA easily has the resources to fix this, the only thing stopping it is the lack of political will.
I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.
jasper76 wrote: I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.
jasper76 wrote: I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.
Doesn't the UK still have a private sector of health insurance providers??Albeit a much smaller one, that serves those who are wealthy enough to afford it. I guess what I'm saying is that even under a single payer system, I don't think an entire industry would completely collapse, it would merely get a whole lot smaller. Plus, in the US we still have a fairly significant supplemental insurance industry to think about.
Yes, you're correct. I hadn't thought about supplemental insurance. Still, there'd be a whole lot of pink slips going around, and a whole lot of insurance companies tanking.
jasper76 wrote: I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.
Meaning it all pretty much evens out then.
I'm not sure what the net job loss/gain ratio would be. I'm not so confident that it would even out. It would mean more government jobs in the DC Metro Area, for sure.
CptJake wrote: Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.
Why not both? If the private sector isn't providing enough jobs, or enough decent jobs, why shouldn't the government provide more?
From my experience, the private sector is far less attractive.
Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?
It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.
However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".
The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).
No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.
I hate it when people complain about the tax system being horribly complicated...I do taxes and for 98% of people, taxes are pretty simple. There are outliers (often the higher incomes that are playing games) but for the most part taxes are seen as complicated are because certain very loud people who don't like taxes keep on repeating that they are...and you know the old phrase...tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it's the truth.
The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
It does if you consider that human life has a value of its own. This represents the government rewarding you for being a good samaritan and taking care of another human being.
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?
It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.
However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".
The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).
No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.
I hate it when people complain about the tax system being horribly complicated...I do taxes and for 98% of people, taxes are pretty simple. There are outliers (often the higher incomes that are playing games) but for the most part taxes are seen as complicated are because certain very loud people who don't like taxes keep on repeating that they are...and you know the old phrase...tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it's the truth.
They're simple for individuals... sure.
But for individuals who owns business and the corporate tax codes should give everyone the heebee jeebees.
Question: what would *you* offer as a concession to the opposition for a Canadian or UK style healthcare system?
jasper76 wrote: I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
That just ends up punishing the children for being born to the wrong parents...
jasper76 wrote: I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
Parents *do* pay more in taxes anyway based on consumer spending.
I don't think that having a parent pay their fair share for their children is a punishment.
On the flip side of your assertion, childless people are currently being punished for not having children, which makes about zero amount of sense to me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.
America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.
But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.
Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.
Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.
And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.
Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.
National Health Care doesn't need a totalised national system. For example, in the UK, general practitioners are self-employed. In Japan, nearly all clinics and hospitals are privately run, and operate under contract to the government health service.
jasper76 wrote: I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
Parents *do* pay more in taxes anyway based on consumer spending.
If a state decides to institute a consumption tax, that's their business. If you chose a lifestyle that demands alot of consumption, that's your business.
I am all for the abolishment of taxes on food, and that would benefit everyone across the board, but would help large families the most. For what it's worth. I think taxing food is a barbaric practice.
jasper76 wrote: I don't think that having a parent pay their fair share for their children is a punishment.
On the flip side of your assertion, childless people are currently being punished for not having children, which makes about zero amount of sense to me.
You aren't being punished, you just aren't being rewarded either.
jasper76 wrote: I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
Ummm.... because if the economic incentive is for no one to have kids, then very few people will have kids. Then guess what happens to your country?
If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Why? Why would narrowing the process down to targeting the military spending specifically be undoable? That's just a variation on "we can't fix everything so why bother?".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why? Why would narrowing the process down to targeting the military spending specifically be undoable? That's just a variation on "we can't fix everything so why bother?".
Why not? That's just a variation of "don't touch my stuff" or "you go first".
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.
So, the next debate should only be:
Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Bush. (maybe Kasich, but why?)
Also, the Democrat side, THIS is why I think Clinton is going to win:
In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a supposedly narrow victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to *only* 42 for Sanders.
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.
Actually, the military could save a feth ton if they prohibit R&D and procurment at the same time. (looking at the JSF as example).
skyth wrote: It does if you consider that human life has a value of its own. This represents the government rewarding you for being a good samaritan and taking care of another human being.
Human life on its own has no value. The state wants you to get children because it needs people to work. That's the sole reason. A government needs taxes to act. People pay taxes. More people = more taxes. More taxes = good.
jasper76 wrote: I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.
Ummm.... because if the economic incentive is for no one to have kids, then very few people will have kids. Then guess what happens to your country?
Hint: It ceases to exist.
Easy E has the basic right of it. It may be pat; but children are the future of a country, so a country that invests in families with children, invests in its future.
Think of it another way; those children are future tax payers. Any money spent on them by a government (via tax breaks or, say, an education system), will eventually make its way back. Not only that but when they are tax payers will also line up with when their parents are no-longer paying tax, so not only will the children's tax replace that paid by their parents but their tax will also help pay for any support the government has to pay to said retired parents. The 'non-breeders' on the other hand; they offer tax payments for only a single working life.
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: Oh, people will still have kids even if they are forced to pay their fair share for them.
But who will be having them? If you make having kids too unattractive, then the only kids that will be had will be accidents or mistakes. I hate to think what a generation of accidents and mistakes would look like.
Plus making parents pay their 'fair share' just punishes children for being born to the wrong parents. It levels the playing field somewhat for the children.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Neither would be feasible, as both a flat tax and a less progressive tax structure are virtually guaranteed to reduce federal revenue; something which will need to increase in order to cover universal healthcare. Not by as much as many opponents like to claim, as it would basically subsume Medicare and Medicaid, but certainly by an appreciable amount.
Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Neither would be feasible, as both a flat tax and a less progressive tax structure are virtually guaranteed to reduce federal revenue; something which will need to increase in order to cover universal healthcare. Not by as much as many opponents like to claim, as it would basically subsume Medicare and Medicaid, but certainly by an appreciable amount.
That's an argument... but, it was just an idea.
What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
You use the basic Paretto principle that all businesses use, and you see why we start with the Military right?
I mean, I thought Conservatives wanted Government to run more like a business.
What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?
Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: Oh, people will still have kids even if they are forced to pay their fair share for them.
The tax break for children is supposed to help ease the burden in training up the next generation of workers who will be paying into social security when you retire. Those kids will be paying to cover you in addition to their parents.
What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?
Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.
You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.
Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
Anyone who understands how the DNC's Superdelegates functions would know that...
That Hillary wasn't going to win New Hampshire? If so, superdelegates had nothing to do with the outcome of the actual vote.
Or are you talking about the fact that the DNC has more direct control over the outcome of its primary process than the RNC?
DNC does have more control than the RNC over their primary section, but I'm simply talking about how the Clinton Crew would ensure the super-delegate votes from the get go.
What do *you* think it'd take to get the opposition to the table? What could the champions of Universal Healthcare put on the table to entice it's opponent to agree?
Essentially nothing. Most ardent opponents of universal healthcare have built their political careers on being opposed to any and all things related to government spending on social programs, so getting them to renege on universal healthcare is a lot like getting them to play Russian roulette. The only way you're going to get universal healthcare to pass is by creating a public sea change which pushes opponents to the idea out of office, and replaces them with sympathetic representatives.
You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.
Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
It's called "compromise".
If the majority of the population decides that universal healthcare becomes important enough, then you don't have to get a single thing to politicians who are opposed to it because they will be voted out of office. There is no need for compromise if something becomes important enough to the population at large, it's really that simple.
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
whembly wrote: Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.
The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).
The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.
So we shouldn't worry about NH results for the Republican primary, because NH is so liberal.
But in the Democratic primary, when the far left candidate beats the centrist in the very liberal state... we're supposed to treat that as a major and decisive moment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Flat tax does nothing to simplify the tax system. The current progressive tax system in the US is captured in the following table;
So just plug your income in to that and hey presto, you're done in 30 seconds. There's additional tables for married people and other categories, but they just move the bands, the structure remains the same.
That is not why or how the tax code is complex. The tax code goes for thousands of pages because it is very hard to determine what is and isn't income, and what kind of income it is. And then gets it more bloated once you start adding special incentives, and have to start defining what does and doesn't meet the criteria for those special exemptions. A flat tax will change none of that.
What a flat tax does is shift the burden, away from the higher income earners and to the lower income earners. And people may be fine with that. But want it for those reasons, not because of a misunderstanding of why the tax system is complex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
You focus on discretionary spending, because that is the spending that you have control over. Because it's discretionary.
That's pretty much how I handle my own household budget. There is the stuff we HAVE to spend money on each month (mortgage, car insurance, utilities) and there is the stuff we CHOOSE to spend money on (dining out, Warhammer, clothes).
If we are trying to save my money and my wife suggests that I cut back my Warhammer spending by 5% then it wouldn't be very reasonable for me to counter "why don't we just spend 5% less EVERYWHERE, let's only pay 95% of our mortgage, 95% of our car insurance, 95% of my electric bill".
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
16% of the population is covered by Medicare, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services employs ~6,000 people.
Now, those 6,000 people also do other things besides administering Medicare of course. But just for the lulz let's look at that number.
Expand those 6,000 people who administer the single payer insurance called Medicare to cover 100% instead of 16% (6,000 x 6.25) = 37,000 employees.
So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
d-usa wrote: So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
Contrast that with the probably few million people who work in the DoD.... And I'm not just talking about the uniformed military folks here. Every military installation runs on civilian employees for a wide range of services.
d-usa wrote: So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
Contrast that with the probably few million people who work in the DoD.... And I'm not just talking about the uniformed military folks here. Every military installation runs on civilian employees for a wide range of services.
Interesting fact: there are fewer people working for CMS than for Congress.
How would you apply the Pareto Principle to spending cuts?
Incidentally, the US federal budget doesn't need cuts, it needs a squeeze. Strong limits on hiring so that natural attrition forces. Tight controls on new projects, unless those new projects can demonstrate overall system efficiencies. A plan to deliver efficiencies of about 3% year on year, with maybe half that used to fund new projects, and the other half returned in savings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
It's called "compromise".
Sort of. I mean, agree that tit for tat compromise should be the bread and butter of day to day politics. But on major issues, if that issue is supported by an overwhelming majority of the population, then one side saying ‘okay you can have it, but only if we get something’ is actually pretty non-democratic. In that situation the best course of action is for the party proposing a really popular piece of law to simply look to pass it, and let the other side suffer at the ballot. If a party wants to stand in the way of an overwhelmingly popular piece of law, then the most democratic result is for them to lose so many seats they can't oppose it any more (and of course, instead of that they'll simply let the law pass).
Of course, all of that is assuming single payer is actually that overwhelmingly popular. It won’t be. It’s kind of loved right now, because it exists as a vague notion of ‘better and cheaper’. But if some actual version was proposed, people would start to see all the bits here and there where they’d actually have reduced coverage, and they’d start to see the transitional chaos that’d be caused. They’d freak out, you can take ACA and times it by 10.
I can guarantee that across the population, in terms of treatment and the price paid, single payer, or better yet single payer with an option for private, would be a massive improvement. But I can also guarantee that it’d produce electoral freak out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jerram wrote: No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
Of course you produce a budget showing the whole budget. But you also split that out in to discretionary and non-discretionary items, to show which items can be increased or decreased with appropriations, and which items need whole changes of law to adjust.
The latter, of course, being a much more difficult process which generally requires reform and results over multiple years, tends not to be considered when dealing with single year budgets.
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
Those tax breaks don't generally make up for the greater expenses that kids require, that's actually partly why they exist. To alleviate the expense of having children, which are quite obviously necessary for the continuation of society.
Anyway, I am a fan of a flat, and generally higher income tax, while removing/heavily reducing consumption taxes.
Some changes I would like to see:
Taxes on gasoline need to be phased out. Up to now, this has been how we got the money to maintain our roads. And it was a decent way of doing it when all vehicles ran on gas. However, electric and hybrid vehicles are becoming more common, and will eventually entirely replace current vehicles. This means we need to move to another way to get the money to maintain our roads. All registered vehicles should have a flat fee, probably based on vehicle weight, which will be used to repair and maintain roads.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
No taxes on food or certain necessary household items at any and all points in the production chain. IE: No taxes on producers, processors, and distributers of food. At least on any profits directly related to these items. Possibly make this not apply to all food, like anything deemed too highly processed or a luxury item.(So for example, Wine would be taxed but breakfast at Denny's wouldn't)
Corporate taxes would also be fixed, say at a flat 15% of taxable profits. Give businesses tax breaks for providing health care and retirement plans to employees, like say $5,000 per employee. Possibly increase this tax break depending on quality of coverage. And of course remove Obamacare mandating coverage be given, You'll get better results by giving businesses massive incentives than making them mandatory.
Any money spent on healthcare or placed into a retirement account would have no taxes.
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
I was not as specific as I should have been. As others have mentioned, I meant the discretionary spending specifically. To my knowledge mandatory spending, while a larger portion of the overall budget, is much more complex to adjust since it involves actually passing/modifying legislation to do so. Regardless, military is 60-odd percent of discretionary spending, which is what I was referring to.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing.
No it doesn't, not whenever we're discussing budget negotiations. Anything that isn't discretionary is not on the table whenever Congress and the President bicker over the budget.
Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
Sure, but that isn't done through the appropriations process, which is what is being discussed whenever the word "budget" is used.
You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.
Many Democrats were from districts whereanything that smells of socialism is generally considered to be evil. Don't mistake Party affiliation for ideological consistency because, ultimately, representatives will reflect their constituencies; especially on major issues.
Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
It's called "compromise".
On minor issues that makes sense, but you can't do something on the level of instituting universal healthcare without touching on a huge number of ancillary issues*; meaning it would be really hard to put something on the table of equal value to the opposition. This is why I said there really isn't anything to be offered, the people that have built their careers on ideas that necessitate opposition to universal healthcare simply need to be swept out of office. Once that happens smaller concessions become feasible, if concessions need to be made at all.
*Taxation is the obvious one, but I can also pretty much guarantee there would be a large number of legal challenges regarding abortion and birth control.
whembly wrote: Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.
The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).
The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.
So we shouldn't worry about NH results for the Republican primary, because NH is so liberal.
But in the Democratic primary, when the far left candidate beats the centrist in the very liberal state... we're supposed to treat that as a major and decisive moment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Flat tax does nothing to simplify the tax system. The current progressive tax system in the US is captured in the following table;
So just plug your income in to that and hey presto, you're done in 30 seconds. There's additional tables for married people and other categories, but they just move the bands, the structure remains the same.
That is not why or how the tax code is complex. The tax code goes for thousands of pages because it is very hard to determine what is and isn't income, and what kind of income it is. And then gets it more bloated once you start adding special incentives, and have to start defining what does and doesn't meet the criteria for those special exemptions. A flat tax will change none of that.
What a flat tax does is shift the burden, away from the higher income earners and to the lower income earners. And people may be fine with that. But want it for those reasons, not because of a misunderstanding of why the tax system is complex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
.
I agree with a couple of your wishlist items, but I am all in favor of a progressive tax so long as income is taxed. A 10% tax on someone making 20,000/year hurts alot more than a 10% tax on someone making 200,000. I believe that under a certain income threshold, citizens should have no income tax at all.
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
Dogma, the Office of Management and Budget disagrees with you since when they submitted the President's Budget, it had it all and to use D-USA's household analogy. Are you really telling me any reputable financial manager won't include the non discretionary in any budget ?
To continue D-USAs analogy sometime's the correct answer is to move to a cheaper neighborhood or change your airconditioner/heat settings so your electric bill and gas bills are 5% less. Adjusting discretionary spending is short term thinking, you don't do things properly by only thinking short term. You only get long term solutions by long term thinking and in this case that requires modifications to "mandatory" spending and considering that congress controls both through legislation....And yes before it gets thrown back out I understand very well the authorization/appropriations process and the roles of the various committees in that budget.
How would you apply the Pareto Principle to spending cuts?
Well, you look at the biggest chunk of Discretionary Spending, and that is where you have the most room to impact the budget overall by applying cuts. Now, I don't have the graph in front of me, but we can quickly find what big discretionary spending blocks get to 80% and that is where you have room to cut and make an impact. if you cut into the other stuff you are just moving deck chairs around.
Granted, it is WAY more complicated than that. I look forward to you tearing me apart on the subject.
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
That 1.5million includes all the doctors, nurses, technicians etc. in the NHS, though.
So it is not like the UK is employing 1.5million bureaucrats as people seemed to think.
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) — The best hope of the Republican establishment just a week ago, Marco Rubio suddenly faces a path to his party's presidential nomination that could require a brokered national convention.
That's according to Rubio's campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, who told The Associated Press that this week's disappointing performance in New Hampshire will extend the Republican nomination fight for another three months, if not longer. It's a worst-case scenario for Rubio and many Republican officials alike who hoped to avoid a prolonged and painful nomination fight in 2016.
"We very easily could be looking at May — or the convention," Sullivan said aboard Rubio's charter jet from New Hampshire to South Carolina on Wednesday. "I would be surprised if it's not May or the convention."
The public embrace of a possible brokered convention marks a sharp shift in rhetoric from Rubio's top adviser that could be designed to raise alarm bells among Republican officials. Yet days after a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire and looking up at Donald Trump in next-up South Carolina, Rubio's presidential ambitions are truly facing growing odds.
While he downplayed his dilemma on his first day in South Carolina after the New Hampshire setback, the first-term Florida senator discussed his political challenges at length during an unusual 45-minute question-and-answer session with reporters aboard his campaign plane on Wednesday. He answered questions until there weren't any more, noting afterward that he hadn't held a session that long with reporters since his days as Florida's House speaker.
In remarks that were at times personal and others defiant, he also may have simply needed to talk it out to help process his predicament. It also seemed he needed to prove to the political world, himself and his family that he could face the biggest test of his young presidential bid.
"My kids were watching me last night," Rubio said of his nationally televised admission that a poor debate performance pushed voters away. "My kids knew that it didn't go the way I wanted it to go."
"I taught them more last night from that experience, I feel, than any words I'll share. They were learning from that experience," he said.
As he shifts his attention to South Carolina's Feb. 20 contest, the 44-year-old freshman senator wants voters to know he's learned an important lesson from his experience in New Hampshire. Instead of trying to avoid attacking his GOP rivals on the debate stage, Rubio said he's now prepared to fight back when necessary — particularly with his party's front-runner Donald Trump.
"I don't need to start these fights, but if someone starts one in the future we're going to have to point out the differences in our records in a sharper way," Rubio said. "I don't think we have the luxury any longer to basically say 'Look, I don't want to argue with Republicans.' "
New Hampshire destroyed any momentum Rubio had coming out of Iowa and for now, at least, locks the senator into a messy muddle in his party's establishment wing. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush beat Rubio in New Hampshire in the contest to emerge as the mainstream alternative to Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
And as senior aides embraced the possibility of a brokered national convention, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the Rubio operation is "built for a long campaign."
"I don't know of anyone who expected folks to fold up after New Hampshire and go on. There are a lot of candidates," Gowdy said as he was traveling with Rubio on Wednesday. "He's never indicated to me anything other than we're built for the long haul and it's going to be a long haul. But, you're running to be the leader of the free world — it's supposed to be a challenge."
There hasn't been a contested national convention since 1976, yet Republican National Committee officials have already had preliminary discussions about the possibility of no candidate securing a majority of delegates in the state-by-state primary contests.
It's by no means assured that Rubio's candidacy will survive that long.
Despite his popularity among many Republican leaders, he will ultimately need to start winning primary contests to remain competitive — especially as Trump and Cruz perform well.
Rubio's team has long expressed confidence about his chances in South Carolina. Yet Rubio downplayed expectations when talking to reporters. "We obviously need to do better than we did in New Hampshire," he said of the state where he finished in fifth place.
Sensing weakness, Democrats and Republicans alike have begun to question Rubio's long-term viability.
"The debate performance hurt. We'll see if he can turn it around," said 68-year-old Rubio supporter Rusty DePass after a Wednesday rally in Columbia. "I'm mad as hell at the people who run his campaign for not having him prepared."
"It was awful," DePass said.
Looks like Cruz is becoming that "Anti-Trump" choice as he's just about the only one consistently attacking Trump and is unscathed. Although, to be fair, Rubio got some good zingers recently.
Whembly, you and I come from very different circles, politically speaking. I'm curious to know what effect Trump's successes are having on that less-loud, more mainline Republican voter group.
curran12 wrote: Whembly, you and I come from very different circles, politically speaking. I'm curious to know what effect Trump's successes are having on that less-loud, more mainline Republican voter group.
About 1/3rd will like Trump because they're the "burn it all down" crowd... they're *that* pissed. To me, it's a childish temper tantrum.
The key will be what it looks like if the GOP Primary is whittled down to 2 or 3 candidates. I don't think Trump breaks the low 30%... so, you'll start seeing the "anti-Trump" candidate coalescing soon.
I'm just hoping that the "anti-Trump" wins the nomination as Trump is the only candidate at the moment who loses to Clinton/Sanders in the general.
Jerram wrote: Dogma, the Office of Management and Budget disagrees with you since when they submitted the President's Budget, it had it all and to use D-USA's household analogy. Are you really telling me any reputable financial manager won't include the non discretionary in any budget ?
Sure he would, but when we're talking about the budget in the context of government spending, we're talking about the appropriations process. OMB can call it whatever it wants, but that isn't the way the term is used.
Jerram wrote: You only get long term solutions by long term thinking and in this case that requires modifications to "mandatory" spending and considering that congress controls both through legislation....And yes before it gets thrown back out I understand very well the authorization/appropriations process and the roles of the various committees in that budget.
See, you just did it. You used "budget" to refer to the appropriations process, and the appropriations process alone.
Taxes on gasoline need to be phased out. Up to now, this has been how we got the money to maintain our roads. And it was a decent way of doing it when all vehicles ran on gas. However, electric and hybrid vehicles are becoming more common, and will eventually entirely replace current vehicles. This means we need to move to another way to get the money to maintain our roads. All registered vehicles should have a flat fee, probably based on vehicle weight, which will be used to repair and maintain roads.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
Personally, I think there should be an 80% tax on studded tires If you look at my location, I'm right near Tacoma... the Puget Sound in Washington State. I basically NEVER snows or really does anything to where studded tires would be useful. It's generally pretty damn mild. As such, there is absolutely ZERO reason why a fething Prius should be tearing up the roads in studded tires during the week. I could MAYBE see Friday afternoon heading east toward Rainier and the mountains... but the fact is, the roads get torn up pretty quickly when people unnecessarily use studded tires.
I somewhat "like" the idea of a flat tax, but what you're proposing here would seriously feth over larger cities like NYC, Boston and LA. Heck, I know that even in my area, the city/county struggles to deal with everything they are expected to, when they have property taxes coming in, 2% of the sales tax money coming in and other various local taxes.... I seriously doubt that getting rid of most of that, in favor of a "mere" 2% of total income would cut it, even for a small-time area like where I live.
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
Yeah, that's what would really kill Grey Templar's proposal. Forget all the problems with balancing taxation against spending across 50 States, ~3,000 counties, and ~20,000 incorporated communities (to say nothing of townships, FPDs, PPDs, and school districts); the real issue would end up being State's Rights.
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
.
I agree with a couple of your wishlist items, but I am all in favor of a progressive tax so long as income is taxed. A 10% tax on someone making 20,000/year hurts alot more than a 10% tax on someone making 200,000. I believe that under a certain income threshold, citizens should have no income tax at all.
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
Yes, 10% would hurt someone making 2k vs 200k more. However, I also said that exemptions would remain. So a single person making 20k a year would still be able to drop $6300 off their taxable income, in addition to any others they might qualify for.
I'd also not be opposed to raising that amount of exemption. Say maybe nobody gets taxed on the first 10k of income. So you'd only be taxed 10% on whatever you make in excess of $10,000.
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Well, even if there is something in Rubio to like, he's just not the kind of dude we want in the White House. I mean, you all saw the debate. Nothing needs to really be said.
The real writing in the wall IMO is in the stories that came out about his panic attacks, and these stories are coming from his supporters. I have loads of empathy for people with anxiety problems, and I don't think people should be looked down upon for having panic attacks, but at the same time, I really don't think someone with those particular issues and challenges should be running the country.
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
The statistics don't bear that out. There was no significant difference between the percentage of people voting for Rubio that made up their minds before the debate, and those who made up their minds after the fact.
This may have something to do with the fact that Christie is generally perceived as a RINO.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Trump would most likely be a pro-business pragmatist, as I can pretty much guarantee that most of the ridiculous crap he has said is part of a campaign act. Honestly, I think he would be a better President than Cruz if only because the few policies he has explicitly attached himself to play well with the vast majority of Republicans, while Cruz's policy positions and unwillingness to negotiate within his own Party have served to alienate a large chunk of it; something that would only get worse if he were standing in the Oval Office.
A Jeb Administration would likely be much like a combination of the George W. and George H.W. Administrations, as he seems to sit between the two in terms of both personality and political positions. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could easily lead him into being a one term President for many of the same reasons that his father was.
jasper76 wrote: I do wonder if Christie would have chosen to pillory Rubio if he knew the he himself was going to drop out only several days later.
That was all grandstanding for a VP slot. He has now proven he can be a vicious attack dog on the campaign trail, so the actual candidate won't have to sully themselves with such tactics.
This really only works if Bush is the Nominee, and that is what Christie is betting on. The Establishment not going with Cruz or Trump.
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Well, even if there is something in Rubio to like, he's just not the kind of dude we want in the White House. I mean, you all saw the debate. Nothing needs to really be said.
The real writing in the wall IMO is in the stories that came out about his panic attacks, and these stories are coming from his supporters. I have loads of empathy for people with anxiety problems, and I don't think people should be looked down upon for having panic attacks, but at the same time, I really don't think someone with those particular issues and challenges should be running the country.
So Trump or Cruz?
While neither are an optimal choice, I think I prefer Cruz because he's a known element. I just can't see which way Trump will go on too many issues.
Well I wouldn't for a moment think Iran might be exaggerating a bit
But I think it was patently obvious from the get go that the GOP was exceptionally eager to turn a fairly mundane international scuffle into some kind of "Obama has betrayed AMERICA!" As if Benghazi and all this other nonsense they've been shuffling around hasn't already made it apparent the GOP will invent scandal when they can't find any. EDIT: And they did the same thing with the US navy patrol boat just a few weeks ago.
Oh I have no doubt the GOP would use the prisoner transfer as a toy to score political points and I think they did. But I doubt they really wanted to extend it all the way to election day. Having the transfer negotiated at a different time than the Nuclear Treaty would have given them fuel to undermine and criticize the deal more than they already have. Beyond that, I doubt the GOP cared when the transfer happened, so long as they could get it on a different timeline.
I wouldn't doubt it. There are historians and political scientists that believe the GOP backroom negotiated the hostage crisis of 1979 to have it stall until elections, helping Reagan take the win.
If the GOP wanted another perfect 'October Surprise' courtesy of Iran that would have been the event.
Of course if Iran presented the evidence, that would be a real email scandal lmao.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
CptJake said 'another' 4-5 million. Which only works if the US health system currently employs zero people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Well, you look at the biggest chunk of Discretionary Spending, and that is where you have the most room to impact the budget overall by applying cuts. Now, I don't have the graph in front of me, but we can quickly find what big discretionary spending blocks get to 80% and that is where you have room to cut and make an impact. if you cut into the other stuff you are just moving deck chairs around.
Granted, it is WAY more complicated than that. I look forward to you tearing me apart on the subject.
Not at all. I agree with you entirely on finding the bulk of savings from the large ticket items. I actually spent about an hour last week in a meeting with our executive, trying to tell them over and over again that there’s simply no way we return to surplus by only cutting materials expenses. 75% of our costs are salaries, therefore…
I still don’t get how Pareto fits in to it, but that might just be me having a very dumb moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Timing is everything. For Rubio it wasn’t just Christie’s attack and Rubio weird non-decision to just keep doing it, it was that it came for Rubio after his second place finish, when lots of voters were looking at him for the first time. The first thing they saw was Rubio being shown as an empty suit. The fact that it was funny meant it got even bigger.
But it wasn’t a complete story until his fifth place in New Hampshire. That lead to Rubio immediately being given the easy narrative – rise, gaffe, collapse. But that narrative only works when you look at his placing, if you look at the actual poll numbers its Trump winning by a mile, Kasich in a comfortable second, then a logjam of Cruz, Bush and Rubio all a bit over 10%. If Rubio had scored another 1.2% he’d have finished in third, and then the story would be Rubio as the standout to challenge Trump.
Weirdly enough, Bush has now had two mediocre results, barely finished ahead of Rubio in NH, and he’s getting talked about as the guy with momentum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm just hoping that the "anti-Trump" wins the nomination as Trump is the only candidate at the moment who loses to Clinton/Sanders in the general.
That's way too speculative right now. One of the things about the Trump nonsense is there's been barely any time spent on any other candidate, for good or for bad. Rubio travelled along nicely for months, had three days of spotlight after the first primary, and then look at what happened. Whereas Clinton has been under the spotlight since 1992.
So pointing out that Clinton loses to Cruz or anyone else right now is forgetting that there'll be a long, long campaign season where Cruz or anyone else will have a whole new host of attacks on them.
Obama is probably the best example. His star shone bright early in the primary, with some excellent results, but quick enough the attacks came, Ayers etc, and in the end it was only through a better delegates campaign he snuck over the line. If one of the not-Trump candidates starts to become the clear opposition, watch for the same to happen. ANd keep that in mind when looking at any polling that says 'will this Republican we the general public knows almost nothing about beat Clinton?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I do wonder if Christie would have chosen to pillory Rubio if he knew the he himself was going to drop out only several days later.
I wonder if Christie’s decision not to go after Trump for his lie about ‘New Jersey muslims cheering’ was playing on his mind. He didn’t want to miss a second chance to take down a rival, even though it was probably too late for him.
For a guy who prides himself as a politician who tells it how it is, his failure to denounce Trump making a a political attack on the constituents of the state he represents revealed a lack of character. That it wasn't even true made it a shameful lack of character.
But hey, why look out for the people who voted you into the office and pay your salary when you can maybe try to hook yourself a low-level cabinet position in a hypothetical Trump administration, right?
Ouze wrote: For a guy who prides himself as a politician who tells it how it is, his failure to denounce Trump making a a political attack on the constituents of the state he represents revealed a lack of character. That it wasn't even true made it a shameful lack of character.
But hey, why look out for the people who voted you into the office and pay your salary when you can maybe try to hook yourself a low-level cabinet position in a hypothetical Trump administration, right?
feth Chris Christie right in his fat face-hole.
Yeah, maybe Christie was chasing a position in Trump's admin. But Trump made the claim late last year, Trump was leading in polls then but I think the common expectation at that time was that Trump was going to flame out soon enough. So perhaps Christie was playing that game most Republicans played for too long, hoping that they could pick up Trump supporters when he imploded?
Whatever Christie’s political calculation was, the end result was exactly as shameful as you say. And what adds to it is how easily one single, mostly comical attack worked on Rubio. I’m left to wonder if a similarly pointed attack on Trump back in November might have sunk him.
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
That 1.5million includes all the doctors, nurses, technicians etc. in the NHS, though.
So it is not like the UK is employing 1.5million bureaucrats as people seemed to think.
According to US Bureau of Labour statistics, about 16.6 million people are employed in healthcare and social assistance in production and non-supervisory roles (i.e. they are workers not managers.) About another 2.2 million are employed as supervisors.
Anyone hoping for a Democratic brokered convention??
My brain hooked on Deb's:
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Then again... the party can do whatever they want in their Primary elections.
*Shrugs*
Maybe a better reply would be that the delegates were redistributed from the big winner to the big loser? It's the same kind of “fairness” the Democrat preaches with every other things they demand... right???
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Well, yeah. Why did you think that they existed? Bear in mind that Republican superdelegates must commit their votes to the majority candidate for pretty much the same reason, the GOP doesn't want another Ron Paul.
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Well, yeah. Why did you think that they existed? Bear in mind that Republican superdelegates must commit their votes to the majority candidate for pretty much the same reason, the GOP doesn't want another Ron Paul.
Just didn't think she'd be so honest.
I guarantee you that most primary voters are unaware of this...
I think my math is right (feel free to correct), but Hillary can still get the nomination even if she gets 42% of the popular vote in the primary.
I don't like Rubio at all, but I also don't think public speaking difficulties are really such a big deal for a leader. Lots of really successful and awesome people have anxiety about speaking in public.
The Republican field is pretty friggin' dismal. Cruz is a lying sleazy scumbag who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw Christie, Trump is Trump, and Rubio is an empty suit.
That said, I dislike Clinton quite a lot too, but don't think that Bernie Sanders would win against Cruz or Rubio (who are the likely Republican nominees). Pretty crappy all round, though it is very encouraging that a self proclaimed socialist could get as far as Bernie has gotten - maybe a sign that US politics is slowly waking up to the fact that the Cold War is over, and there are no Reds under their Beds.
So, the Dem Debate. Was there a knock-out punch there? Did Bernie get out his message enough for Southern/Western states? Did Hilary manage to make Bernie look bad on Foreign Policy?
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
CptJake said 'another' 4-5 million. Which only works if the US health system currently employs zero people.
No, CptJake used the number Do_I_Not_Like_That provided, just as Do_I_Not_Like_That said I did. The 'Another' was referencing adding that 4-5 million to the Fed Govt, just as Do_I_Not_Like_That implied you would have to do.
Ted Cruz campaign pulls ad after learning actress did porn
The Ted Cruz presidential campaign pulled a recent advertisement after realizing that one of its actresses appeared in adult films.
In “Conservatives Anonymous,” which parodies Alcoholics Anonymous, a group of conservatives meets to discuss feelings of betrayal after voting for candidates who profess to stand for conservative values but swiftly compromise after arriving in Washington, D.C.
Actress Amy Lindsay has a speaking role in the TV spot for the Texas senator’s presidential campaign, telling another conservative, “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.”
At the end of the ad, a new arrival enters the room wearing a shirt in support of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, asking if the group has room for one more.
Actress Amy Lindsay speaks in an ad for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign. (Photo: Ted Cruz for President/YouTube)
The Daily Caller was among the first to report that Lindsay has had an extensive career in soft-core pornography, appearing in “Erotic Confessions,” “Insatiable Obsession,” “Secrets of a Chambermaid” and other similar titles.
Catherine Frazier, the national press secretary for the Cruz campaign, told the news site in a statement that they were unaware of her erotic past before releasing the ad.
“The actress responded to an open casting call,” the statement reads. “She passed her audition and got the job. Unfortunately, she was not vetted by the casting company. Had the campaign known of her full filmography, we obviously would not have let her appear in the ad. The campaign is taking the ad down and will replace it with a different commercial.”
After the clip was taken off YouTube, the Los Angeles-based actress tweeted that she was disappointed in the campaign’s decision.
“Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in,” she tweeted.
According to her IMDB page, Lindsay has also appeared in non-erotic, mainstream TV series and films, such as “Star Trek: Voyager” and “The Portrait of a Lady.”
She told BuzzFeed News that she is a conservative Christian and a Republican and has not performed in hardcore porn films.
The actress said that her appearance in Cruz’s ad is actually cool because it shows that not all Republicans fit neatly into a stereotype.
“In a cool way, then hey, then it’s not just some old, white Christian bigot that people want to say, ‘It could be, maybe, a cool kind of open-minded woman like me,’” she said to BuzzFeed of Cruz supporters.
Da Boss wrote: I don't like Rubio at all, but I also don't think public speaking difficulties are really such a big deal for a leader. Lots of really successful and awesome people have anxiety about speaking in public.
Yep... Just look at that poor Austrian painter dude... He majorly screws up one speech, and is laughed out of the spotlight. But he doesn't give up. No, he bootstraps himself so hard that, by the time he's ready for the public spotlight again, he's one of the best public speakers in the world!
Bootstraps!
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
I disagree with that premise...
If anyone's the "empty suit", it's both Trump and Clinton.
Rubio/Cruz/Bush are solid conservatives, just as Clinton/Sanders are solid liberals (Sanders 'proud' lefty).
Why not? Sanders is damn new off the chart on the political spectrum here in the states. And, he's not shy in telling anyone who'd listen.
Also, why would someone working in soft porn even be an issue? I don't get it.
I don't agree with this decision, but understand where they're coming from. The Cruz campaign is try hard to go after the evangelicals (via the Reagan strategy) and they're still the "no bewbs or arses on teevees" crowd.
Why not? Sanders is damn new off the chart on the political spectrum here in the states. And, he's not shy in telling anyone who'd listen.
If Sanders is actually proud of being extremely liberal, then placing the word "proud" in quotations doesn't make sense as quotations are used to separate a term from the overall structure of a sentence or indicate sarcasm. By placing the word "proud" in quotations you're effectively indicating that Sanders is not proud to be very liberal, and is in fact full of gak; which doesn't seem to jive with what you've just written.
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
I disagree with that premise...
If anyone's the "empty suit", it's both Trump and Clinton.
Rubio/Cruz/Bush are solid conservatives, just as Clinton/Sanders are solid liberals (Sanders 'proud' lefty).
The contrast couldn't be more apparent.
Being called out, by Christie of all candidates for using canned responses/talking point responses would be my definition of an empty suit. Yes, he's in a situation where he has to say just about anything to remain relevant and try to get elected, but for many people, it doesn't get much worse than resorting to old "that's what she said" type responses (in this case, I'm using "That's what she said" as a euphemism for an old and tired line that in itself has become rather canned/generic)
skyth wrote: Sorry, but Clinton is a moderate not a liberal. She's only a liberal in contrast to how far right the Republicans have shifted.
Ehh... not really... She's still a liberal, but I'd say she falls somewhere in between Progressive and Classical.
Also, I haven't been paying too much attention to Jeb! (which, lets be fair, no one really is), but I suspect that he's like the Bushes before him and pretty well Classical Liberal as well.
Dreadwinter wrote: When the CDC Offers to help, why would you turn them down? I mean, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.....
Mainly because of your oversized ego or something you have to hide.
That event shows what happens when you put incompetent people in charge. And when you put money above everything else.
Also, sheer stupidity is much more spread than you expect - especially in people who are taking decisions and that you would believe their cursus prevents them from being that stupid. Sadly...it doesn't.
Dreadwinter wrote: When the CDC Offers to help, why would you turn them down? I mean, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.....
Perhaps they believe it's a punishment from "God" for their "sinful nature"?? (would explain the whole no bum-love bill that got passed) Perhaps it's something to do with money, afterall the Republican party is most definitely the party that is pro-big business and trickle down shenanigans.
Were I one to believe in conspiracy theories, I could suggest that the reason Republicans in MI don't want outside help in the Flint water issue, is because they don't want any other decaying corpses that were stuffed into proverbial freezers to be found. Unfortunately for them, if there is something worse than the water issue in MI, they have such a big spotlight on them right now that it will be found.
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?
It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.
Not that it hasn't been in this thread, but just to be clear, we're keeping it POLITE about Scalia's death here. No crowing, dancing on his grave or anything like that. Disagree with his policies, say you thought X or Y comment he made was unconstitutional or hypocritical, but don't be disgusting and celebrate his death.
And Sig, if Obama can't get a justice in it means the next president is going to be placing at least one, likely 2 (because 8 years is a long time for another to die) justices. This means the political leaning of the court could change markedly, and since they serve for so long, this change could have a huge impact on future decisions
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?
It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
Can you elaborate on the reasons for us lowly EU peasants?
Justice Scalia was one of the, if not THE, most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. If there was a conservative cause, you would find him championing it. So having him pass away is a huge blow to the conservative side of the bench, especially in an environment where the Supreme Court just very recently decided to hear some challenges on key Obama legacy pieces and they made that decision on a 4-5 margin (and nobody would be surprised if Justice Scalia was one of the 5 wanting to hear the challenge).
Obama will be able to appoint a new Justice to the bench, and whoever he appoints would most likely be a moderate who would function as a swing vote. He could propose a fairly liberal judge, but I don't think he would try to swing the balance of the court that much and it would certainly shut the Senate down if he tried. If Obama manages to replace one of the most conservative judges on the bench with another swing vote, then it becomes even more important for a Republican to win the White House to restore the "balance" of conservatives vs liberals on the bench.
Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
Can you elaborate on the reasons for us lowly EU peasants?
He was one of the members of our highest court, the supreme court. The members serve for life (generally) and interperate the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. There are only 9 members, so they hold a lot of sway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
d-usa wrote: So there is already a thread for this. But Justice Scalia is dead, which will have a HUGE impact on the election.
I have to wonder about the likelihood of a R controlled congress allowing Obama to put someone in. You saw how they were about lower courts. The question is, can the supreme court operate down a member?
It can and frequently does when justices recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. I'm not sure Obama can get a new one in time though I am sure he is looking into his short list right about now.
Yes, but for a year?
For a year would be tough, and with Obama having his immigration and environmental executive orders on the line he will likely try to get a replacement on the bench.
I don't think it will be anybody liberal, but this would be the moment to get another swing vote on the bench.
I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.
That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.
Ouze wrote: I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.
That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.
The longest time between a justice dying or stepping down and a new one being appointed is roughly 120 days. Republicans will have to triple that to avoid another Obama appointee.
Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.
Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.
Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.
Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.
That line of thinking is a nice way to dig at originalism, though.
That's like, 100% how it doesn't work, by dint of the SCOTUS being appointed and not elected. But sure, why not, Mitch. Or, if you'd prefer, the American people did have a voice in the selection of their next justice, by way of Barack Obama winning the Presidency. As John McCain once said, elections have consequences.
The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.
That's like, 100% how it doesn't work, by dint of the SCOTUS being appointed and not elected. But sure, why not, Mitch. Or, if you'd prefer, the American people did have a voice in the selection of their next justice, by way of Barack Obama winning the Presidency. As John McCain once said, elections have consequences.
The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.
Oh Mitch, you silly silly turtle. What a ridiculous statement.
The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to thinking that the GOP will be unable to block a new nominee until after the election. That's a really long time off.
They can, but doing so would vindicate every single charge of obstructionism that the Democrats have made over the last 6 years.
Ouze wrote: I think that Congress is going to dig in like never before to prevent Obama from filling Scalia's seat. I'm excited about adding a jurist who hasn't gone on the record stating he would overturn Roe v Wade given the opportunity, as Scalia has.
That being said, I will take a moment to remember Scalia's dissent in Kelo vs New London.
The longest time between a justice dying or stepping down and a new one being appointed is roughly 120 days. Republicans will have to triple that to avoid another Obama appointee.
If Hillary or Sanders win, I expect the Senate will approve whichever nominee President Obama has in the pipeline simply because there would be no point in prolonging it. Should Cruz or Rubio win, then you will have your delay through Jan 22nd.
Or nominate Cruz to shake up the GOP presidential candidate side.
It would effectively delegitamize as Clinton/Sanders could argue in the General that "you're only here because Obama cleared the deck for you".
EDIT: neva gunna happen, I just saw Deadpool so I'm infected with some of Wade's snarkiness. But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.
Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.
Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.
That's kind of the whole point of the argument Tribe is making: if you believe in a living constitution, then Cruz is a natural born citizen. If you follow the originalist philosophy, then he isn't, which the article is using to make the point that Cruz is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution he wants to hold sacred and which parts he doesn't care about in regards to his legal philosophy.
Which also plays into all the Senate races that will be happening this year as well. The Senate has to approve the choices made by the President. So Democrats may try to jump on the opportunity to have a campaign message of "we need to control the Senate so that the next Republican President can't appoint conservative judges". And Republicans will be able to light a fire under the "we must undo the damage of Obama and his liberal SCOTUS". That is if the Senate doesn't completely implode and have Senator Cruz shut everything down until he is elected and places a true conservative on the bench to replace Scalia.
Cruz is no less a natural born US citizen then I am, or John McCain. He was born to a US Citizen in another nation. I was born in Greece, yet I am a natural born citizen. Any who question his eligibility is no less a "birther" then those who go after Obama, and deserve the same derision.
That's kind of the whole point of the argument Tribe is making: if you believe in a living constitution, then Cruz is a natural born citizen. If you follow the originalist philosophy, then he isn't, which the article is using to make the point that Cruz is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution he wants to hold sacred and which parts he doesn't care about in regards to his legal philosophy.
If that were true, then the earler Presidents wouldn't been legal? (Washington, et el).
That was already accounted for within the eligibility requirements, as it stated either natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
By the way, in case I didn't make it abundantly clear when this issue first cropped up, I believe Cruz is eligible.
I feel like doing so would just further polarize the country.
You are correct, but that doesn't mean there is no hay hay to be made.
whembly wrote: But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.
Why would Cruz accept the nomination? If I were in his position, I certainly wouldn't.
Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.
Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)
It'd get rather silly if a Justice had to rule on whether a law that he himself had passed was constitutional or not (obvious conflict of interest, but still).
jasper76 wrote: Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.
Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)
Well, mebbe anyway...
Right... because in your capacity as a judge, one would never have been responsible for tough decisions.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It'd get rather silly if a Justice had to rule on whether a law that he himself had passed was constitutional or not (obvious conflict of interest, but still).
We've had one President go on to serve on the Supreme Court in William H. Taft. He was President from 1909 to 1913 and was Chief Justice of the United States from 1921 to 1930.
jasper76 wrote: Really, Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice at this point.
Like, for real,. Maybe so should W Bush??? (what I'm getting at is people who have been responsible for life/death decisions IRL, and have had to live with the consequences of their decisions, rather than the assembly of know-it-alls we have now)
Well, mebbe anyway...
Right... because in your capacity as a judge, one would never have been responsible for tough decisions.
Not sure what you mean...
My main point is that being a noteworthy litigator in academic circles is not a substitute for experience.
reds8n wrote: So if Clinton/similar Democrat won the election could they then appoint Obama to the Supreme Court ?
That'd be entertaining to watch
Why would they? Isn't Obama supposed to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations as part of his plan to take over the world as the new AntiChrist?
Anyway, for those who watched the GOP debate last night (I didn't), was it really as bad, nasty, and vicious as CNN's report makes it out to be? Apparently, Bush was the only one to have read his Constitution that day, as he went against the others in saying Obama can nominate a replacement for Scalia, and that it should be someone who the Senate could actually reach consensus on. Which, of course, is the responsible, correct, and ideal answer, but I doubt certain members of the Senate will act in a responsible, correct, and ideal manner.
It was like watching a bunch of little boys getting into a schoolyard fight. At one point I really thought Trump was going to try to physically throw his podium at Bush. Name calling, gut reaction attacks, false posturing, ignorance, being reprimanded on swearing...pretty much what one has come to expect from the current crop of GOP candidates.
In memorial of Scalia, there were a whole lotta "jiggerity-pokery" last night.
It finally got nasty, for good reason.
Keep in mind that South Carolina is next, a religious southern state that *really favors the military (they have a bunch of bases).
Scorecard:
-Rubio is BACK baby!
-Cruz is a shade behind Rubio
-This was Bush's best debate and landed solid punches on Trump. (too little, too late imo -Kasich actually did okay, but he couldn't pull away with the pack.
-Carson... ZZZZzzzzzz what was that good doctor?
-Trump. He lost it. No really... he really, REALLY fething lost it. He's a 9/11 truther. Sounded like a Democrat blaming everying on GWB. I bet he loses his "front-runner status" soon.
whembly wrote: But, man... could you imagine? Obama could be like "fine Republicans... I nominate Ted Cruz. He'll take it, and in doing so dooms the rest of the candidate's chance in the general". Plus, just image the chaos.
Why would Cruz accept the nomination? If I were in his position, I certainly wouldn't.
First: It's just a "House of Cards" Dunbar reference where Underwood tried to offer the SC position to Dunbar to "take her out" of Presidential election.
Secondly: As minuscule of a chance this could happen (Obama would nominate himself first... really), I think Cruz would jump on it in a heartbeat. The GOP and even some Democrat would vote "just enough" to let him through as he won't be a thorn on their side in the Senate. He'll just puck up Scalia's thorn... so, there's not a "net loss" here.
Anyways, I was hoping someone would point out my Dunbar reference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: anyone think that the big bugaboo in this election is now over the Supreme Court nomination, instead of Immigration?
IF so, that hurts Trumps, but it also may galvanize the base in both parties. I'm guessing that it'll galvanize the Democrat voters more... thoughts?
What if, horror of horrors, Obama actually did nominate someone to the SC that was acceptable to both sides by any means of measuring? CNN has an article about who might be on Obama's short list, and while I don't pay much attention to such things, the person at the top of the list was someone who, when nominated to the D.C. court (which the article says is usually the stepping stone to the SC), was confirmed by the Senate 97-0 (including Cruz and Rubio). What if Obama nominated the same guy to the SC? Or would today's partisan political shenanigans get in the way?
Tannhauser42 wrote: What if, horror of horrors, Obama actually did nominate someone to the SC that was acceptable to both sides by any means of measuring? CNN has an article about who might be on Obama's short list, and while I don't pay much attention to such things, the person at the top of the list was someone who, when nominated to the D.C. court (which the article says is usually the stepping stone to the SC), was confirmed by the Senate 97-0 (including Cruz and Rubio). What if Obama nominated the same guy to the SC? Or would today's partisan political shenanigans get in the way?
Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.
*shrugs*
Buckle your seatbelt... it's going to get fugly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: also, this was Trump last night:
There is also precident that SC positions were filled in election years--five if I'm not mistaken. There is also precident that a Pres could fill the role with a recess appointment (Eisenhower did it with Brennan shortly before the election). Looks like McConnel will need to keep the senate open for business 24/7 for the next year. Maybe they could get some of their work done.
I'm not so sure the GOP has really thought through their decision to come out so quickly with opposition before Obama has put anybody forward yet. The longer they obstruct, the more immature the GOP looks to swing voters. Politically, it's a loser to anyone but a hard right voter. Plus, with Obama having already stacked the lower courts as liberal (9/15?), any controversial close SC decisions will split 4-4 and the decision gets kicked back to the lower courts. Looking at the docket, most of the decisions will go liberal by default.
whembly wrote: Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
No there isn't, mainly because it's an exceedingly rare event.
It should also be noted that the only time a Supreme Court justice had been appointed during an election year (in the modern era) was during Reagan's final year in office (and that person was Justice Anthony Kennedy).
It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.
Are you talking about Anthony Kennedy? If you are, the seat to which he was appointed (which was Justice Powell's) was not vacant for 18 months; it was vacant for seven (June 26, 1987 to February 3, 1988).
whembly wrote: Doesn't matter. There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
No there isn't, mainly because it's an exceedingly rare event.
It should also be noted that the only time a Supreme Court justice had been appointed during an election year (in the modern era) was during Reagan's final year in office (and that person was Justice Anthony Kennedy).
Of course it's rare because these are lifetime positions.
It took Kennedy's seat to be filled by him about 18 months.
Are you talking about Anthony Kennedy? If you are, the seat to which he was appointed (which was Justice Powell's) was not vacant for 18 months; it was vacant for seven (June 26, 1987 to February 3, 1988).
Oops, my math was way wrong. I could've swore that how Borked process took an inordinate amount of time.
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?[/quote
By the Holy Emprah™, please look at my avatar and chillax.
I said there wasn't alot of precedent.
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
whembly wrote: Can't believe I missed this... best political Ad so far:
Oh look, something shiny! So I guess this means we are moving on after you were called out about your "no Supreme Court nominations during an election year" claim that was in no way factually accurate?
They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
You must be new here. Also who is "they?" I'm not talking about the candidates here, I'm talking about Whembly and his oft tenuous relation to facts. He made a claim (or more accurately, repeated a claim that someone else made) and when told it wasn't true, he just moved on to an idiotic Ted Cruz political ad. This is relevant because in the next few weeks, after the President rightly chooses a nominee for Congress to confirm, he'll probably be back in this thread repeating the same non-truth.
BlaxicanX wrote:He didn't drop the tangent, he's just going to bring it up again in a slightly different capacity later.
Whembly's been following the same script for 280 pages.
No, actually you said no such thing. You said this:
whembly wrote: There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
You even used capital letters to prove your [wrong] point. Now you're being dishonest on two levels.
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
That doesn't matter nor is it the question here. I'm talking about a very specific piece of blatantly untrue information that that two people running for office said and you then repeated and at no time between those two instances did it ever become less false. The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate a qualified person to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing just like Congress has the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination. In case you and the people you vote for have forgotten, that's how this system works.
No, actually you said no such thing. You said this:
whembly wrote: There's precendent that SC vacancy were NOT filled during election year.
You even used capital letters to prove your [wrong] point.
Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
And use fricking common sense scooty. Don't you think it'll be harder or easier to push through a Supreme Court pick when the opposite party holds the Senate?
That doesn't matter nor is it the question here. I'm talking about a very specific piece of information that is blatantly untrue that two people running for office said and you then repeated and at no time between those two instances did it ever become less false.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate a qualified person to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing just like Congress has the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination. That's how this system works.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic
"Pedantic" is the word you were looking for, and my decision to point that out is pedantry; Scooty calling you out on a core element of your argument is not.
whembly wrote: Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Yeah, that's it Whembly... I'm just being pedantic. Dude, you repeated a blatant lie and then tried to act like you didn't, but that's somehow me being "pedantic." Just admit you were wrong and be done with it. It won't kill you.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
See above.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
He has to "appoint" (more like nominate) a person with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and of course they can reject a nomination, I never claimed that they have to accept the first one and the first one only. But they have to confirm someone because it's their constitutional duty to do so. Of course, they could shirk their duties like a bunch of asshats, which you're clearly okay with. Also, pointing out that I said "that nomination" even though it's obvious I was talking about "a nomination" is pedantry.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
I don't think he'll make a recess appointment, though there is a precedence to confirm a recess appointment. The only one not confirmed was John Rutledge as Chief Justice in 1795, but he was already an Associate Justice at the time; all other nine appointees were eventually nominated by the Senate.
whembly wrote: Fine, I'll walk it back if you want to be pandentic. I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Yeah, that's it Whembly... I'm just being pedantic. Dude, you repeated a blatant lie and then tried to act like you didn't, but that's somehow me being "pedantic." Just admit you were wrong and be done with it. It won't kill you.
Tell me how you *really* feel Scooty.
See above.
Fine. I'm wrong, you're right.
FALSE. The Senate is NOT under "the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination". The Senate can tell Obama to pound sand and reject the nomination.
THAT'S how the system works.
He has to "appoint" (more like nominate) a person with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and of course they can reject a nomination, I never claimed that they have to accept the first one and the first one only. But they have to confirm someone because it's their constitutional duty to do so. Of course, they could shirk their duties like a bunch of asshats, which you're clearly okay with. Also, pointing out that I said "that nomination" even though it's obvious I was talking about "a nomination" is pedantry.
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Obama could appoint a Recess Appointment now since the Senate is truly in Recess. Unless, the Senate goes pro forma tomorrow... That'll be some firecracker there!
I don't think he'll make a recess appointment, though there is a precedence to confirm a recess appointment. The only one not confirmed was John Rutledge as Chief Justice in 1795, but he was already an Associate Justice at the time; all other nine appointees were eventually nominated by the Senate.
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations
The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations
The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations
The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
whembly wrote: Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
Who said there was a time limit? Still, they have the constitutional duty confirm a nomination. What would happen if the Republicans don't regain control of the Presidency but keep control of the Senate? Would they not confirm anyone then? What about when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires? Would they leave two seats open?
Of course, there would be irony in the party that claims to love the Constitution so much pout their way into a constitutional crisis by preventing the President from upholding the duties he was elected to perform.
Sorry to say it, but I follow these things, and he was a donkey-cave. Hopefully we won't ever get another Supreme Court Justice, from either political stripe, like him again.
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations
The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations
The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations
The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
If those numbers are for all political appointees... way to distort the numbers...
Sen. Leahy & Sen. Reid blocked numerous Bush's judicial nominations. They're both on record for that.
Oh... and the GOP never held a filibuster-proof Senate. Thus, the minority D's did have considerable sway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: So Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.
Sorry to say it, but I follow these things, and he was a donkey-cave. Hopefully we won't ever get another Supreme Court Justice, from either political stripe, like him again.
Dreadwinter wrote: How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
Because that isn't his "whole argument"? Because this is just one issue? I work to find out how closely a given candidate supports many issues I care about before making a decision. If Rubio is the best match overall then a campaign commercial likely won't matter much to me.
Besides, he isn't saying anything that the other candidates (Republican and Democrat) aren't thinking.
He wasn't a textual Justice. He was a self-absorbed ego-maniac that somehow made it to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, exposed the weaknesses of our system of checks and balances, which was meant to ensure that sycophants like him don't ever gain power.
How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
lol, this "precedent" is silly
The bs smells so bad, it's hard to breathe it in. You're never going to be POTUS dude, it's time to get over your self-infatuation. It's the job of the POTUS to fill the Supreme Court. Notice the acronym 'POTUS'. Not Senator. Not Representative. Not 189th District Florida Retirement Committee Co-Chair.
jasper76 wrote: He wasn't a textual Justice. He was a self-absorbed ego-maniac that somehow made it to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, exposed the weaknesses of our system of checks and balances, which was meant to ensure that sycophants like him don't ever gain power.
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you.
Anyway, there was this item on Yahoo!
According to Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent Olivier Knox, Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Yes, I do admit to a level of hatred when it comes to Scalia, and I think its every bit a justified as my hatred for the late Jerry Falwell. Indeed, the two were cut from the exact same soiled cloth.
Actually, the Senate doesn't have to confirm *anyone*. There's no time limit.
See the Democrats from 2001 till 2007.
The Democrats?
From 2001 through 2007:
The 107th Senate was a 50/50 split (with a Republican VP) and had 1861 Senate Confirmations The 108th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1777 Senate Confirmations The 109th Senate was a Republican Majority and had 1920 Senate Confirmations The 110th Senate was a Democratic Majority and had 1847 Senate Confirmations
If those numbers are for all political appointees... way to distort the numbers...
Sen. Leahy & Sen. Reid blocked numerous Bush's judicial nominations. They're both on record for that.
For the 110th Senate (D): 177 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 111 were confirmed by the Senate, 57 Returned to the President, and 9 Withdrawn by the President. For the 109th Senate (R): 177 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 105 were confirmed by the Senate, 65 Returned to the President, and 7 Withdrawn by the President. For the 108th Senate (R): 209 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 172 were confirmed by the Senate, 35 Returned to the President, and 2 Withdrawn by the President. For the 107th Senate (R): 450 were referred to the Judicial Committee, 292 were confirmed by the Senate, 142 Returned to the President, and 16 Withdrawn by the President.
whembly wrote: I still believe it really depends on which party holds the Senate. It can go easy, or fugly (like the Bork'n time).
Funny you should use that example, since in both the previous example (Kennedy) and with Bork, it was the same senate composition (Democratic) - Kennedy was nominated around 35 days after Bork was rejected, and he was confirmed . I don't think you're proving the point you think you are, especially when the "Nay" votes for Bork were 58 against, and 7 of those were Republicans. Kennedy in fact was confirmed less than 5 months after Bork was rejected.
You're bringing up Bork because you're obviously reaching for an example of when the Democrats refused to confirm *any* nominee, so when the Republicans do it, you can say "well, both parties do it" as is your wont. You're going to have to look harder, since Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 in an election year.
Dreadwinter wrote: How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
Because that isn't his "whole argument"?
What is his whole argument then? Because honestly, that is what it is. There is absolutely no reason for Obama not to nominate a judge. It is his job. Rubio is telling Obama to not do his job, so he can do it later.
What Republicans in the Senate thought about judicial appointments in 2005 is interesting, considering their line of rhetoric today (especially from McConnell):
According to Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent Olivier Knox, Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Seriously? Eric Holder? Someone's trolling.
Spoiler:
That Srinivasan guy is the one I was talking about earlier who was at the top of CNN's short list (they didn't mention Holder on their's). Srinivasan was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate to his position (including Cruz and Rubio in that 97). Would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama nominated him. What would be the excuses for confirming him earlier, but not now?
I'm not familiar with the candidate, but the excuses have already been laid out by the GOP regarding any Obama nomination. For some weird reason, they are promoting as truth to the American public that the POTUS doesn't have the legitimacy to fulfill his Constitutional duties if he's in his final year of office.
Of course, this isn't a Constitutional position, not even remotely, so here we see the GOP's underlying political nihilism in plain view.
Rubio's unadulterated ambition should not go unnoticed here. He is willing to degrade the office of POTUS in a desperate effort to gain a fleeting iota of political clout. It's really pathetic coming from a doomed Presidential candidate, and speaks volumes about his character.
Why would Obama being in the last year of his term make any difference? It doesn’t of course, unless someone wants to make the argument that for one out of every four years the country just stops having an active president, because something something lame duck something. And hey, if you’re going to delay a supreme court appointment for a year in the hope that the next president will be from your team, why not delay for two years, or four? President got sworn in yesterday, but you fancy your party’s chances in four years? Refuse to confirm!
That said, I quite like the idea of a partisan congress never confirming a Supreme Court nomination ever again. Just the remaining 8 judges slowly getting more powerful as one by one they drop off. Who’d be the final, super supreme court justice, who’d rule over the nation as it’s last, final tyrant, before the end times? Kagan is the youngest, but I’d give it to Alito, because he just seems like the kind who lives for absolutely bloody ages.
Sinful Hero wrote: They should be expected to move on- you already proved they were incorrect. Do you have an axe to grind or something? Are you expecting an apology? If they dropped the tangent after being proven wrong just let it go.
Part of honest and useful debate is giving credit to good arguments from the other side, and properly conceding when your own bad arguments have been shown to be false. This is important because if people never properly recognise that they’re wrong, then they’ll just return to their original false belief soon enough. It produces this pattern of bad arguments that being made then shown to be factually or logically completely wrong, but because nothing is conceded, then a week or a month later that same bad argument will be raised again. It will be smashed again, only to raise its head again and again. It’s like fighting zombies, the real danger is attrition.
This isn’t a dig at whembly. I’ve seen him concede points, so that makes him better at this than most of the internet. But there is a weird culture where people just walking away from bad arguments, or repeating them again later, is seen as less rude than pushing someone to be honest enough to admit their argument was bad. So it’s really no surprise that zombie arguments are very common.
There's no rule against it, but it would be kind of silly. It's illegal to be part of two branches at the same time (I think, it's what the West Wing said anyway ), so he'd basically be giving up the presidency to Biden, and I doubt he'd ever be confirmed anyway. No GOP in congress wants Obama on the bench. Is he even qualified for that? He has a law degree I think, but as far as I know Barry has never been a judge at any level of government.
You would think that, in 2016, they just might know better than to pull this kind of crap. Don't they get that, in the age of the Internet, this kind of things makes instant news everywhere? Now it gets to be fodder for the presidential candidates. I understand that they think they're being sneaky with it. Or maybe they intend to use it as an "extra" penalty on top of other crimes (example: rapist also forced victim to have oral/anal sex, so that's another crime to charge the rapist with), but that's still not the way to go about it.
I could've swore that how Borked process took an inordinate amount of time. 
