U.S. Politics

Page 358 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Odd, I thought jobs was the Rs most important priority at the moment?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-poorly-attended-hearing-on-one-of-the-economy-s-toughest-problems-20130424





Suppose they were too busy organizing another symbolic Obamacare repeal vote.
Oh the irony. If the R's were successful it would add jobs by the hundreds of thousands almost immediately.

I'm sure you've seen the Politico story of congressional leaders in discussions to exempt themselves and their staff from Obamacare because of the undue cost burden.

Yeah, that ACA is something else.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
The underlying logical conclusion of your objections to this, together with your resistance to any sort of (new) gun legislation, would quite simply be -

Why bother to have any laws at all, since we know that there will always be people who break them? Why bother to provide any services at all, since there will always be fraud?

If you accept fundamental human nature, you just have to accept that objecting to something simply on the basis that it will be abused by criminals anyway, is a truly pointless way to think.

edit this just came up on my FB page right after I wrote the above post!




edit 2 - Apologies for the size, can a mod please crop this?
Yeah Amsterhammer that is where we are with the Weapons bills and legislation. Sad state of affairs.

I wonder and will most likely be slapped into an new section for saying this but if there was no internet and cable television say go back to around 78-84 wouldn't we be able to get some reasonable weapons legislation passed.

Not that the interwebz and cable are bad but most of the time polarization is out of control with the access to information. Good and bad.

Amster - thanks for the post.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh the irony. If the R's were successful it would add jobs by the hundreds of thousands almost immediately.

I'm sure you've seen the Politico story of congressional leaders in discussions to exempt themselves and their staff from Obamacare because of the undue cost burden.

Yeah, that ACA is something else.
Ah yes, if we could just get rid of Obamacare all those jobs that big business has shipped off to China would suddenly and miraculously reappear on our shores.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh the irony. If the R's were successful it would add jobs by the hundreds of thousands almost immediately.
Like the Bush years? Tax cuts? Deregulation? Yeah, that did wonders. Now if instead of "add" you meant "subtract", then sure. Totally agree. Maybe now would be a bad time to point out that the worst jobs report over Obama's entire tenure was after sequestration, ie when government spending was cut and the R's austerity approach was actually put into practice? Now imagine 5 years of that. Happy days are here again.

I'm sure you've seen the Politico story of congressional leaders in discussions to exempt themselves and their staff from Obamacare because of the undue cost burden.

Yeah, that ACA is something else.
Which isn't actually true, since the entire discussion is about ambiguity in the wording of the bill. But hey, let's vote on it another 37 times anyway.

btw I'm sure you saw that move by Rs to try and "help" sick Americans, which Kevin Drum quite neatly summed up:

Give sick people without insurance temporary access to crappy private plans at exorbitant rates as part of a strategy aimed at pulling the rug out from under them entirely at the end of the year, all the while mewling about one's concern for sick people." And updated: "After a closed meeting today, House Republican may pull this bill from the calendar due to conservative opposition to doing anything that might be perceived as “fixing” Obamacare or asserting government responsibility for the uninsured.
The contempt that conservatives have for middle and lower-income America is really quite astonishing.

But it's all a waste of time and money anyway, ACA or whatever other reforms that either side come up with - the first step is to stop pretending that we have anything remotely like a functional health care system. We don't. Markets aren't capable of providing an efficient, effective health care system. No amount of tweaking is going to change that.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Well this will be interesting.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/295759-reid-proposes-new-background-check-requirement-for-explosives

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require background checks to be run on anyone buying explosive powder, a reaction to last week's Boston Marathon bombing. Reid introduced the bill, S. 792, for Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been out sick for much of the year. But in a press statement, Lautenberg said the Boston bombing shows that background checks are needed for explosive materials.

"It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked," Lautenberg said Tuesday. "Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.
Well we know how Ds will vote - for common sense - but it puts Rs in a bit of tight spot. The NRA has fought against this for decades. So vote no and **** off America, vote yea and **** off the NRA. What to do, what to do. Although as we saw with the background check gun vote, Rs are less worried about ****ing off America than they are the NRA.

And in the "America: seriously, wtf is wrong with this country??" category:

It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Ah yes, if we could just get rid of Obamacare all those jobs that big business has shipped off to China would suddenly and miraculously reappear on our shores.
Enjoying that iPhone are ya? :D
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Like the Bush years? Tax cuts? Deregulation? Yeah, that did wonders. Now if instead of "add" you meant "subtract", then sure. Totally agree. Maybe now would be a bad time to point out that the worst jobs report over Obama's entire tenure was after sequestration, ie when government spending was cut and the R's austerity approach was actually put into practice? Now imagine 5 years of that. Happy days are here again.

Which isn't actually true, since the entire discussion is about ambiguity in the wording of the bill. But hey, let's vote on it another 37 times anyway.

btw I'm sure you saw that move by Rs to try and "help" sick Americans, which Kevin Drum quite neatly summed up:



The contempt that conservatives have for middle and lower-income America is really quite astonishing.

But it's all a waste of time and money anyway, ACA or whatever other reforms that either side come up with - the first step is to stop pretending that we have anything remotely like a functional health care system. We don't. Markets aren't capable of providing an efficient, effective health care system. No amount of tweaking is going to change that.
Oh, I see.

That's what Nancy Pelosi was talking about. Gotta pass the bill outside of all the fog so we can find out what's in it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
“George W. Bush should have been impeached, but it didn’t happen.”
The speaker was North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, a safe Republican incumbent who has spent years apologizing for his early Iraq War boosterism. (You’ll remember him as the House member who got the cafeteria to rename french fries “freedom fries.”)
I suppose the obvious question is why didn't Jones make it happen?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Enjoying that iPhone are ya? :D
I still have a flip phone, but that's beside the point. Most businesses will not go out and hire new workers and especially not at a noncompetitive pay rate just because they have some more capital available, that money stays in the owner/shareholder's pockets.
Everywhere that I look corporations are spending their money on ways of doing away with jobs (ie. automated check out at the grocery store). Making jobs is not a priority for big business.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
But shouldn't the expectation be one of "If Glenn can do it so can you" first, then fill in where necessary?

Don't low expectations contribute to the problem?

I'm not going all Pollyanna on you, but shouldn't there be some balance between encouraging people to get out there and find their way and making determinations that some (many) will never be able to?

It seems to me we are very quick to tell people that they can't make it on their own. That's my perception and I'm very open to changing it.
My suggestion is that there already is balance. Many forget that much of the expense for social programs is for the elderly and truly disabled. They don't count in the equation. With their exclusion, there are many things that encourage people to find their way. But the reality is that many will never do so. I don't think those people deserve to starve or die of exposure.

Most people subsisting on government assistance, including the elderly and disabled, are always on the edge of ruin. Homelessness and hunger are ALWAYS the next step down. Removing their assistance is not going to do anything but knock them down. For every one that does find a way out in that reality, there will be thousands more who commit crimes to get by. I personally know people who committed crimes to have a place to sleep and food to eat. You want more of that and I don't. Because it's nice to believe homelessness and starvation will motivate people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but it won't. Poverty doesn't work like that.

And again, I don't follow the belief that only the people who "deserve" assistance should get it. Why? Because I don't know how to humanely draw that line in the real world and neither does anyone else.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I see.

That's what Nancy Pelosi was talking about. Gotta pass the bill outside of all the fog so we can find out what's in it.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that the Obama administration has done a very poor job of explaining it clearly, and that sales job has been lost in the fog of conservative and R obfuscation and just plain bull**** (death panels, anyone?).

The irony is that even a majority of Republicans support the provisions of the ACA, they just don't realize that they support it:

The new Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that Obamacare remains deeply unpopular; 56 percent of Americans oppose the law, versus only 44 percent who favor it. The poll also finds that strong majorities of Americans favor the individual provisions in the law -- the hated individual mandate excepted, of course.

What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the law’s main provisions, too.

I asked Ipsos to send over a partisan breakdown of the data. Key points:

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor “creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance.” That’s backed by 67 percent of independents.

* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers.” That’s backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26.” That’s backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
Unsurprisingly, the one thing Rs did not support:

expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.”
Shocking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html

Not surprising that the majority of Rs support the main provisions of the ACA, since most of the provisions in the ACA are what Rs were themselves advocating for years - it's only since Obama basically hijacked Romneycare that they've turned against it.

There’s a reason for this. For the last two decades, leading Republicans have supported various health care plans that looked, well, like the Affordable Care Act. Then Democrats embraced the proposal and Republicans turned against it. But that all happened pretty quickly — too quickly, in fact, for Republicans to really develop and unite around a plausible alternative. And so when they talk off-the-cuff about what they would like to see happen in the health-care market, they tend to describe something similar to their old plan, which they now oppose. It can all get pretty confusing.
Against what they used to be for until it became associated with Obama. Sounds familiar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I still have a flip phone, but that's beside the point. Most businesses will not go out and hire new workers and especially not at a noncompetitive pay rate just because they have some more capital available, that money stays in the owner/shareholder's pockets.
Everywhere that I look corporations are spending their money on ways of doing away with jobs (ie. automated check out at the grocery store). Making jobs is not a priority for big business.
Big business are not the primary drivers of employment.

Plus, automation and technology march on. That won't be stopped and that is not the fault necessarily of big business.

You probably have telephone, fax machines, bar code scanners... I'll bet doing inventory in your store is much quicker and more efficient than it would have been 40 years ago. The result? You don't have as many people working with you as you once might have had to have.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
The biggest problem with the ACA is that the Obama administration has done a very poor job of explaining it clearly, and that sales job has been lost in the fog of conservative and R obfuscation and just plain bull**** (death panels, anyone?).

The irony is that even a majority of Republicans support the provisions of the ACA, they just don't realize that they support it:

Unsurprisingly, the one thing Rs did not support:

Shocking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html

Not surprising that the majority of Rs support the main provisions of the ACA, since most of the provisions in the ACA are what Rs were themselves advocating for years - it's only since Obama basically hijacked Romneycare that they've turned against it.

Against what they used to be for until it became associated with Obama. Sounds familiar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/
When the architect of the plan (Max Baucus) chides Sebelius about the plan being a "train wreck" that should tell anyone except the purist of ideologues that there are major, major problems with this legislation.

Go back and look at his comments in their entirety.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
rhubroma said:
Though I'm not sure what you mean about the "parasitic effects of capitalism," I think the best way at helping the poor is first and foremost not marginalizing them any more than their economic state does. To make them feel as valid members of the larger community thus starts with not vilifying poverty or making it their "fault," as I've often seen demonstrated by a certain callous class of citizen. Then there would be those public and social institutions that cover basic needs like having access to an affordable education from grammar school through university and not having to worry about sanitary issues. There are places where being poor isn't accompanied by either a loss of dignity, or that ghetto rage that comes with an excessive pride that is only the mask of envy, because these institutions are in place and working.

Supporting the under-class, therefore, isn't exclusively connected to volunteer work. If you mean by parasitic effects of capitalism the system having generated an under-class that feeds off the blood of affluent society, then I think what the system has warped is a basic perception of community and what is the collective responsibility toward the poorest elements within it. At the same time assisting to a too great concentration of wealth pushes the middle class further toward poverty, at which point one can't talk about an affluent society with a minority poor class: but a social crisis that is a threat to the stability of democracy.
Philosophical arguments and academic pontification over the parasitic effects of capitalism are great for educating people. They are about as important to the poor as used toilet paper when it comes to actually living day to day. And I don't see a lot of academics doing anything real for the poor other than fighting a useless game of mental chess with someone who opposes their ideas.

My point is that those who cry over the poor in ivory towers are as far removed from the poor as a CEO.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I still have a flip phone, but that's beside the point. Most businesses will not go out and hire new workers and especially not at a noncompetitive pay rate just because they have some more capital available, that money stays in the owner/shareholder's pockets.
Everywhere that I look corporations are spending their money on ways of doing away with jobs (ie. automated check out at the grocery store). Making jobs is not a priority for big business.
So the pay phone service techs and installers are now out of work.:)
 
ChewbaccaD said:
...there are many things that encourage people to find their way. But the reality is that many will never do so. I don't think those people deserve to starve or die of exposure.
You aren't completing the Right's rhetorical circle properly. It goes something like this.

Don't bother spending tax revenue on the disadvantaged. They will always be there regardless of the money spent. What's worse is the social spending creates an incentive for more people to choose living on social spending than be a productive member of society.

Various non-profits are good enough to serve the permanently poor. This is where the R myth goes into hyper-drive. They imagine a market-driven non-profit economy where the wealthy are free to choose which things to fund. Which they will. Except they don't fund social safety nets or class mobility because it's the poorer/disadvanted fault for their situation.

It's a perfect circle. Except it doesn't provide any social/economic stability, doesn't promote any class mobility, doesn't promote personal incentive.

I'm not saying the D's do it better. They are as captured as the Right. But, peripherally appear to cater to a more social-style democracy.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I'm not sure how to interpret this. To clarify, what would you call the changes of the last 25 years to industrial, trade and social policy?
I'm speaking specifically about Obamacare.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh the irony. If the R's were successful it would add jobs by the hundreds of thousands almost immediately.

I'm sure you've seen the Politico story of congressional leaders in discussions to exempt themselves and their staff from Obamacare because of the undue cost burden.

Yeah, that ACA is something else.
There is absolutely no proof for that statement. Austerity is proving to be a pretty p!ss poor way for Europe, there is absolutely NO proof that the Great Depression would have been improved by limiting government (contrary to the drivel of the Heritage Foundation), and there is no proof that those policies would work here, now.

What you are suggesting is an unproven theory. The only thing we can be sure of with your solution is that the most wealthy will increase their wealth.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
When the architect of the plan (Max Baucus) chides Sebelius about the plan being a "train wreck" that should tell anyone except the purist of ideologues that there are major, major problems with this legislation.

Go back and look at his comments in their entirety.
Interesting that you pull "train wreck" out of it's context, since that's not at all what Baucus was talking about. What he was talking about was the lack of information about the ACA.

He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices.

"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this."
To which Sebelius responded:

Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her. The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that either.
And of course:

But half the states, most of them Republican-led, have refused to cooperate in setting up the infrastructure of Obama's law. Others, like Montana, are politically divided. The overhaul law provided that the federal government would step in and run the new markets if a state failed to do so. Envisioned as a fallback, federal control now looks like it will be the norm in about half the country, straining the resources of the department Sebelius leads.
Always comes back to the routine R pattern: muck things up as best they can, then stand back and say, see, look, doesn't work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/max-baucus-obamacare_n_3101801.html
 
Scott SoCal said:
Big business are not the primary drivers of employment.
The point of the comment is that big business drives industrial, social, financial and most of all intellectual property policy matters. As a result of their policy preferences, it is safe to characterize the American economy at the moment as mature.

Big business employs relatively few, yet commands most of their market segment dollars in a loose regulatory capitalism system as is working in the U.S.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
There is absolutely no proof for that statement. Austerity is proving to be a pretty p!ss poor way for Europe, there is absolutely NO proof that the Great Depression would have been improved by limiting government (contrary to the drivel of the Heritage Foundation), and there is no proof that those policies would work here, now.

What you are suggesting is an unproven theory. The only thing we can be sure of with your solution is that the most wealthy will increase their wealth.
Trickle down .......the drain?
 
DirtyWorks said:
You aren't completing the Right's rhetorical circle properly. It goes something like this.

Don't bother spending tax revenue on the disadvantaged. They will always be there regardless of the money spent. What's worse is the social spending creates an incentive for more people to choose living on social spending than be a productive member of society.

Various non-profits are good enough to serve the permanently poor. This is where the R myth goes into hyper-drive. They imagine a market-driven non-profit economy where the wealthy are free to choose which things to fund. Which they will. Except they don't fund social safety nets or class mobility because it's the poorer/disadvanted fault for their situation.

It's a perfect circle. Except it doesn't provide any social/economic stability, doesn't promote any class mobility, doesn't promote personal incentive.

I'm not saying the D's do it better. They are as captured as the Right. But, peripherally appear to cater to a more social-style democracy.
You left one thing out and that is when it's time to publicly assist big finance to avoid an economic castrophe that doesn't regard the poor (in so far as they already are) - what I call corporate welfare - then that's merely the downside of the system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS