U.S. Politics

Page 389 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
aphronesis said:
Maybe Taibi should pitch his writing above the 13 year old level since none of his readers are going to ever do much about this situation.
Awww, upset because Taibbi tries to explain things to the little people who are so unworthy?

Maybe he could pitch it to you. Still nothing would get done but it would give you self-validation for being an even bigger condescending ass than usual.
 
BroDeal said:
Maybe he could pitch it to you. Still nothing would get done but it would give you self-validation for being an even bigger condescending ass than usual.
If he pitched it to me I wouldn't be condescending and since it's not news, I don't need the validation.

But you're right, everyone should keep things moderately dumbed down so that you don't feel lonely, but rather good about yourself instead. I said 13 year olds; no other value judgment. It's a matter of infantilization--nothing to do with elitism.

But you're a bit too defensive to get that.

Maybe you should go back to rumbling with the Sky fans.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, the optics just got worse.

This is getting ugly. For Shulman, plausible deniability just went out the window.:D

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/former-irs-commissioner-shulmans-wife-works-for-liberal-group-fighting,51a91148da27f5d9d0d2f6ec/2
what is the significance of his wife's job? you have heard of mary matalin and james carville, no?

as for the quote regarding his visits, perhaps he had no answer because his visits were to the executive office building (where the budget office is) and not the white house. as i said above, their records are included with the white house's.

quoting anything from the daily caller makes you look credulous. there are plenty of credible conservative sources. they are not one.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

The true irony here is Obamacare really increases the cost of coverage in the population centers. Of course the population centers in Cali are where the Obama voters reside.
avik roy is sometimes pretty good, but his analysis on heritage/romney/obama-care has already been pointed out to be incorrect by several independent sources.

(i loathe the washington post, but the wonkblog is one of their few credible opionators.)
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
what is the significance of his wife's job? you have heard of mary matalin and james carville, no?

as for the quote regarding his visits, perhaps he had no answer because his visits were to the executive office building (where the budget office is) and not the white house. as i said above, their records are included with the white house's.

quoting anything from the daily caller makes you look credulous. there are plenty of credible conservative sources. they are not one.
Daily Caller? Pfft. Mother jones, Dailykos, MSNBC, etc. Those are credible though, right?:rolleyes:

As to the significance of Shulmans wife... Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.” Public Campaign “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

Public Campaign is funded by large public and private sector unions as well as Soros supported groups.

So unions have no limits on campaign contribution. They don't like 501 c4 organizations as they tend to even the playing field for the R's.

An argument could easily be made that Shulman and his wife were working for a similar outcome from different directions.

At the very least it makes Shulman look like an even bigger schmuck.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Daily Caller? Pfft. Mother jones, Dailykos, MSNBC, etc. Those are credible though, right?:rolleyes:
how is the credibility of other media outlets relevant to the credibility of the daily caller? that is quite a non sequitur.

Scott SoCal said:
As to the significance of Shulmans wife... Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.” Public Campaign “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

Public Campaign is funded by large public and private sector unions as well as Soros supported groups.

So unions have no limits on campaign contribution. They don't like 501 c4 organizations as they tend to even the playing field for the R's.

An argument could easily be made that Shulman and his wife were working for a similar outcome from different directions.

At the very least it makes Shulman look like an even bigger schmuck.
i think you and other "conservatives" would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot. if "liberals" were impuning some favored republican over his wife's association you'd be rightfully calling it hogwash. in fact, i seem to remember just such an situation not too long ago.

also you mischaracterize unions and campaign contributions. until the supreme court decision, unions were subject to the same limits as corporations. after the decision, now they were free to spend, however since union membership is less than 10 percent of the workforce their lobbying dollars are dwarfed by the amount the koch brothers alone spend. (i'm not picking on the kochs, i am just illustrating the point that 501c4s didn't level the playing field.)

furthermore there are at least two problems with the alleged irs targeting. first, i remember reading after the citizens' united decision that tea party groups were specifically going to use this decision to go after the irs (more power to them, i say). they didn't have to apply for an exemption, yet they flooded the irs with applications, far more than liberal or apolitical groups. it is hardly surprising groups that are mainly political and antipathetic to the irs would come under increased scrutiny. frankly, this just reeks of cynicism. second, there is some confusion over what political activities 501c4s can engage in. when the law was written, engaging in politics was prohibited. however, it was reinterpreted in the 50s (i think) to mean if their political activities were less than 50% of their focus, they fell into the tax exempt status. either way, interpreting just how much of a group's work is political or not would take time.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
how is the credibility of other media outlets relevant to the credibility of the daily caller? that is quite a non sequitur.



i think you and other "conservatives" would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot. if "liberals" were impuning some favored republican over his wife's association you'd be rightfully calling it hogwash. in fact, i seem to remember just such an situation not too long ago.

also you mischaracterize unions and campaign contributions. until the supreme court decision, unions were subject to the same limits as corporations. after the decision, now they were free to spend, however since union membership is less than 10 percent of the workforce their lobbying dollars are dwarfed by the amount the koch brothers alone spend. (i'm not picking on the kochs, i am just illustrating the point that 501c4s didn't level the playing field.)

furthermore there are at least two problems with the alleged irs targeting. first, i remember reading after the citizens' united decision that tea party groups were specifically going to use this decision to go after the irs (more power to them, i say). they didn't have to apply for an exemption, yet they flooded the irs with applications, far more than liberal or apolitical groups. it is hardly surprising groups that are mainly political and antipathetic to the irs would come under increased scrutiny. frankly, this just reeks of cynicism. second, there is some confusion over what political activities 501c4s can engage in. when the law was written, engaging in politics was prohibited. however, it was reinterpreted in the 50s (i think) to mean if their political activities were less than 50% of their focus, they fell into the tax exempt status. either way, interpreting just how much of a group's work is political or not would take time.

I'll go ahead and source info from where I choose if that's ok with you.

No mischaracterization of union advocacy activity at all. In fact, it's particularly problematic on the public union side. Here you have employees that are paid with tax dollars that contribute dues to their union which then makes campaign contributions (tax dollars) to politicians to further strengthen causes public unions hold dear. Like raise taxes, etc.

Unions dominate political campaign contributions so mentioning the Koch brothers is borders on comedy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You are of the opinion nothing out of the ordinary is going on with the IRS. So, why mention their activity? Why bring it up? If they did nothing wrong then why admit that they did?
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'll go ahead and source info from where I choose if that's ok with you.
you don't mind being misled and then misleading others as long as you agree politically with the source? that is your right.

i loathe all political persuasions, so don't try to continue with this straw man false equivalence. all ideologies are for the weak minded.

No mischaracterization of union advocacy activity at all. In fact, it's particularly problematic on the public union side. Here you have employees that are paid with tax dollars that contribute dues to their union which then makes campaign contributions (tax dollars) to politicians to further strengthen causes public unions hold dear. Like raise taxes, etc.

Unions dominate political campaign contributions so mentioning the Koch brothers is borders on comedy.
first bold: another non sequitur. how unions spend their contributors money is problematic for their members, but not what is at issue. you said 501c4s (or their ability to make unlimited contributions after citizens' united) leveled the playing field which it did not. i explained why not. read it again.
second bold: what!? they are their salaries. they earned them. they can legally and morally advocate for whatever they want with that money. i doubt you'd be complaining if public sector unions were advocating for causes you favor.
third bold: seriously? your credulity is overwhelming.
do you even understand what this information means? these were political contributions to parties and unrelated to citizens' united. not the total of money spent in favor of one party or the other. by the koch's own reckoning they have spent over a billion dollars on their advocacy in the last several years.

You are of the opinion nothing out of the ordinary is going on with the IRS. So, why mention their activity? Why bring it up? If they did nothing wrong then why admit that they did?
i'm not quite sure what you are asking. why did i bring it up? i have no love for the irs, it's just the facts don't happen to support any great anti-tea party conspiracy. as for their admissions, they have admitted to legal activity that looks partisan. the inspector general's report has already cleared them.

i would love it if there were something scandalous or even impeachable here. i would love to see these people get there comeuppance. keep looking. torture, drones, banking mess, secrecy, illegal-wiretapping, and so on. there is plenty of immoral and illegal activity going on.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
you don't mind being misled and then misleading others as long as you agree politically with the source? that is your right.

i loathe all political persuasions, so don't try to continue with this straw man false equivalence. all ideologies are for the weak minded.


first bold: another non sequitur. how unions spend their contributors money is problematic for their members, but not what is at issue. you said 501c4s (or their ability to make unlimited contributions after citizens' united) leveled the playing field which it did not. i explained why not. read it again.
second bold: what!? they are their salaries. they earned them. they can legally and morally advocate for whatever they want with that money. i doubt you'd be complaining if public sector unions were advocating for causes you favor.
third bold: seriously? your credulity is overwhelming.

do you even understand what this information means? these were political contributions to parties and unrelated to citizens' united. not the total of money spent in favor of one party or the other. by the koch's own reckoning they have spent over a billion dollars on their advocacy in the last several years.


i'm not quite sure what you are asking. why did i bring it up? i have no love for the irs, it's just the facts don't happen to support any great anti-tea party conspiracy. as for their admissions, they have admitted to legal activity that looks partisan. the inspector general's report has already cleared them.

i would love it if there were something scandalous or even impeachable here. i would love to see these people get there comeuppance. keep looking. torture, drones, banking mess, secrecy, illegal-wiretapping, and so on. there is plenty of immoral and illegal activity going on.

you don't mind being misled and then misleading others as long as you agree politically with the source? that is your right.
What was misleading in the DC article? I'm dying to know.

i loathe all political persuasions, so don't try to continue with this straw man false equivalence. all ideologies are for the weak minded.
Well I loathe politicians and most of the utter nonsense dreamt up by them.

what!? they are their salaries. they earned them. they can legally and morally advocate for whatever they want with that money. i doubt you'd be complaining if public sector unions were advocating for causes you favor.
Oh I see. If that's your philosophy why do you have a problem with what the Koch Bros spend their money on?

do you even understand what this information means? these were political contributions to parties and unrelated to citizens' united. not the total of money spent in favor of one party or the other. by the koch's own reckoning they have spent over a billion dollars on their advocacy in the last several years.
Yeah, I understand what it means. It's why I posted it.

Koch bros again... You do realize there is big money on the left too, right?

i'm not quite sure what you are asking. why did i bring it up? i have no love for the irs, it's just the facts don't happen to support any great anti-tea party conspiracy. as for their admissions, they have admitted to legal activity that looks partisan. the inspector general's report has already cleared them.
The IRS brought it up themselves. Lerner staged her conference call.

We don't even know the facts yet. If you want to buy what the IG reports then feel free. We will see what happens next.

i would love it if there were something scandalous or even impeachable here. i would love to see these people get there comeuppance. keep looking. torture, drones, banking mess, secrecy, illegal-wiretapping, and so on. there is plenty of immoral and illegal activity going on.
I think it just goes to the total fallacy of how big govt can be good govt. Give some dumbass like Shulman or Miller a little bit of power and invariably you end up with what we see happening now.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
The "other" social welfare system of the US is becoming quite costly it seems:

The cost of military pay raises and benefits programs, which have increased almost 90 percent since 2001, have become the fastest-growing part of the Pentagon’s budget and now account for more than a quarter of all defense spending. Here is a look at the types of compensation provided to active-duty troops and retirees, how those costs have grown and where they are headed.
Active Duty

Salary
Housing allowance (tax free)
Food allowance (tax free)
Commissaries
Free health care
Defense schools (on some bases)
Subsidized child care
Education (tuition allowance and G.I. Bill)

Retired

Pension
Low-cost health care
Access to commissaries
and other base amenities
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, the optics just got worse.




This is getting ugly. For Shulman, plausible deniability just went out the window.:D

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/former-irs-commissioner-shulmans-wife-works-for-liberal-group-fighting,51a91148da27f5d9d0d2f6ec/2


And who can forget...



Lol

Here is the thing that makes no sense to me about the right's getting the vapors over the number of visits: How fu*king hard is it to tell him to target the groups? I mean, did they just whisper one letter each time he came?

To suggest that these visits were necessary for the WH to indicate their nefarious strategy (if that did indeed happen) is ludicrous.

One dimensional thinking makes it easy to draw any conclusion you want...
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'll go ahead and source info from where I choose if that's ok with you.

No mischaracterization of union advocacy activity at all. In fact, it's particularly problematic on the public union side. Here you have employees that are paid with tax dollars that contribute dues to their union which then makes campaign contributions (tax dollars) to politicians to further strengthen causes public unions hold dear. Like raise taxes, etc.

Unions dominate political campaign contributions so mentioning the Koch brothers is borders on comedy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You are of the opinion nothing out of the ordinary is going on with the IRS. So, why mention their activity? Why bring it up? If they did nothing wrong then why admit that they did?
Nice selective reporting of statistics. I found this on your site: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

That's from 2012...note the top 4...

Anyway, the game is soft money: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/softsource.php

Kind of screws up your "don't mention the Koch brothers" narrative, but there it is.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
...these questions were answered previously...
Oh I see. If that's your philosophy why do you have a problem with what the Koch Bros spend their money on?

...here too...
i answered all of your questions in what i've previously posted including the strawman above.

i have no problem whatsoever with how the koch's spend their money as i stated in a previous post. it was pretty implicit that they were chosen as an example from your political persuasion.

i only have a problem with money in politics insofar as it corrupts the system. for every single washington politician money is king. if there were a legal way to get all money out of politics, i would be all for it.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Bala Verde said:
The "other" social welfare system of the US is becoming quite costly it seems:

...snipped washington post BS...
this is kind of misleading. while officers do have a generous pension system, it compensates for the fact that they are paid less than a market salary for their positions and that they are required to pick up their families and move all over the world every two or three years.

that increase in cost is due to the health consequences of multiple deployments to war zones. enlisted soldiers salaries are not enough to raise a family on and in some case below minimum wage. this leaves young soldiers vulnerable to predatory lenders which congress has done little to prevent. in fact, some of their "reforms" have actually made certain kinds of loans more onerous.

the real scandal is in how more and more enlisted personnel are getting kicked out of the military without any health benefits after receiving injuries during their deployments to battle zones. this is another problem that can be dropped in the lap of congress and the president. there is plenty of money for weapon systems that the military doesn't want, but commanders are under pressure to reduce battlefield injuries to stay within budgets. many soldiers are getting kicked out of the military for "malingering" because their untreated or under treated injuries prevent them from doing their jobs.

the military wanted an all volunteer force and they got it. now they are kicking out more soldiers for "behavior" problems than they did during viet nam. while the military's reluctance for a draft is understandable, in my opinion the problems that come with a draft would be compensated for by the fact that every american would have more of an investment into what the military is committed to.
 
gregod said:
this is kind of misleading. while officers do have a generous pension system, it compensates for the fact that they are paid less than a market salary for their positions and that they are required to pick up their families and move all over the world every two or three years.

that increase in cost is due to the health consequences of multiple deployments to war zones. enlisted soldiers salaries are not enough to raise a family on and in some case below minimum wage. this leaves young soldiers vulnerable to predatory lenders which congress has done little to prevent. in fact, some of their "reforms" have actually made certain kinds of loans more onerous.

the real scandal is in how more and more enlisted personnel are getting kicked out of the military without any health benefits after receiving injuries during their deployments to battle zones. this is another problem that can be dropped in the lap of congress and the president. there is plenty of money for weapon systems that the military doesn't want, but commanders are under pressure to reduce battlefield injuries to stay within budgets. many soldiers are getting kicked out of the military for "malingering" because their untreated or under treated injuries prevent them from doing their jobs.

the military wanted an all volunteer force and they got it. now they are kicking out more soldiers for "behavior" problems than they did during viet nam. while the military's reluctance for a draft is understandable, in my opinion the problems that come with a draft would be compensated for by the fact that every american would have more of an investment into what the military is committed to.
Your post is good but a draft is a very bad idea.
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
The Hitch said:
Your post is good but a draft is a very bad idea.
The current system, which results in a segregated society, isn't working either. If every time the president decided to send our troops overseas a national draft had to be put into action we'd be a lot less likely to send our troops into doomed, imbecilic conflicts. As it is now, it's unfair that one segment of American society has to entirely bear the human costs of misguided foreign policies.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
The Hitch said:
Your post is good but a draft is a very bad idea.
Thank you. how do you think a draft (or conscription; i.e. everybody at age 18 would have to serve two years, like israel or south korea.) would be worse than what we currently have?

with society's current level of respect for the military, now would be the perfect time to implement such a plan. there may be downsides, but none come to mind. i'm interested to hear your thoughts.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Here is the thing that makes no sense to me about the right's getting the vapors over the number of visits: How fu*king hard is it to tell him to target the groups? I mean, did they just whisper one letter each time he came?

To suggest that these visits were necessary for the WH to indicate their nefarious strategy (if that did indeed happen) is ludicrous.

One dimensional thinking makes it easy to draw any conclusion you want...
Oh, I dunno. Seems the more visits the more plausible deniability disappears. Also, it kind of squashes the "he's a Bush guy" mantra.

Now it appears the low level Cincy IRS employees that Lerner tried to throw under the bus are saying their marching orders came from DC. Oops.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334736/IRS-employee-congressional-interviews-tea-party-targeting-Washington-DC-wanted-cases---I-sent-seven.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
i answered all of your questions in what i've previously posted including the strawman above.

i have no problem whatsoever with how the koch's spend their money as i stated in a previous post. it was pretty implicit that they were chosen as an example from your political persuasion.

i only have a problem with money in politics insofar as it corrupts the system. for every single washington politician money is king. if there were a legal way to get all money out of politics, i would be all for it.
I agree. But what's to be done? If all money is taken out of the picture the only those who can finance their own campaign wins? Fair? Not at all.

Public financing? Good luck with that.

And what of every Americans freedom of speech right? A campaign contribution is nothing if not that. So where's the balance? Is there a balance?
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I agree. But what's to be done? If all money is taken out of the picture the only those who can finance their own campaign wins? Fair? Not at all.

Public financing? Good luck with that.

And what of every Americans freedom of speech right? A campaign contribution is nothing if not that. So where's the balance? Is there a balance?
Nope - I don't see a natural method of balance anywhere. Which is why we have entrusted our lawmakers with trying to come up with a balanced set of regulations. Which regulations are not necessarily balanced, but are hopefully a rational attempt at same. And, since they ARE regulations, have gotten through enough hands to be approved to probably be a reasonable attempt to provide some controls. Doesn't mean they can't be improved, or needn't be changed. All part of the "rule of law" - if the laws aren't flexible and changeable at some level, they will end up bad.

Campaign contributions are a form of "freedom of speech", sure - but freedom for those with enough money to contribute. And more "freedom" for bigger spenders.
 
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