• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 390 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 30, 2010
191
0
8,830
gregod wrote;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.

great idea. If you don't want to join the military, join the peace corps.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Did you notice the City of NY is 7th on the list?

Ol' Sheldon makes the Koch Bros look like amateurs.
Did you notice the top 4 give almost exclusively to R's? Again, you started the narrative, at least recognize the reality.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
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
Visit 1: Hey man, target tea party groups.
Visit 2: Hey, did you get the message we want you to target tea party groups?
Visit 3: Hey, about those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
Visit 4: We were wondering how the tea party targeting is going?
Visit 5: We are just making sure you clearly understand we want the tea party targeted.
Visit 6: About those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
...
Visit 115: How is the tea party targeting coming along?
...
Visit 136: Did we make clear that we wanted the tea party targeted?
...

The narrative you guys are hyperventilating over is stupid. The number of visits prove NOTHING in relation to anything. If there was any collusion on the part of Obama, it wouldn't have taken more than a single meeting to formulate the dastardly deed. But you guys keep looking for scandals because your entire narrative about the absolute necessity of massive cuts in government spending being needed is being exposed as smoke and mirrors each successive day...
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
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?
Yes, that is the answer.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Did you notice the top 4 give almost exclusively to R's? Again, you started the narrative, at least recognize the reality.
So what? My narrative was simply to suggest that, historically, nobody was upset when unions flush the D's with cash.

The reality is there is an obscene amount of money flushed down the toilet every election cycle. Nearly a billion raised to re-elect a mediocre (at best) president and a billion raised to un-seat him with what would have surely been another mediocre president.

And that's just for top office.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Visit 1: Hey man, target tea party groups.
Visit 2: Hey, did you get the message we want you to target tea party groups?
Visit 3: Hey, about those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
Visit 4: We were wondering how the tea party targeting is going?
Visit 5: We are just making sure you clearly understand we want the tea party targeted.
Visit 6: About those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
...
Visit 115: How is the tea party targeting coming along?
...
Visit 136: Did we make clear that we wanted the tea party targeted?
...

The narrative you guys are hyperventilating over is stupid. The number of visits prove NOTHING in relation to anything. If there was any collusion on the part of Obama, it wouldn't have taken more than a single meeting to formulate the dastardly deed. But you guys keep looking for scandals because your entire narrative about the absolute necessity of massive cuts in government spending being needed is being exposed as smoke and mirrors each successive day...
I think the only hyperventilating going on is Plouffe and all getting their azz handed to them when trying to defend what is increasingly looking indefensible.

Us guys keep looking for scandals? In the case of the IRS, Lerner told the world herself. WTF did you think was going to happen next?:)
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yes, that is the answer.
Perhaps, but as I said earlier.... good luck.

Tell me which DC politico will settle on a mutually agreed to (by all parties) public-only campaign financing?

Neither side wants to see hard or soft money disappear form politics... unless it's their competition that's cut off from it.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I think the only hyperventilating going on is Plouffe and all getting their azz handed to them when trying to defend what is increasingly looking indefensible.

Us guys keep looking for scandals? In the case of the IRS, Lerner told the world herself. WTF did you think was going to happen next?:)
Yea, you guys leap from one "worse than Watergate" scandal to the next. It's kind of hard to keep up with, that's why I posted the link to Mother Jones.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, you guys leap from one "worse than Watergate" scandal to the next. It's kind of hard to keep up with, that's why I posted the link to Mother Jones.
It's hard to account for every wingnut on the right.

But the IRS was Lerner and DOJ was the AP. Those two bigger than Watergate scandals sort of fell in to the laps of the R's. Hard to blame them for asking follow-up questions.
 
Wallace said:
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.
It would not change US foreign policy. If neccesary they would find a way to work around it - eg only send elite sections of the military into foreign conflicts. These elite sections would obviously be voluntary since anyone who doesn't want to be elite won't put the work in.

gregod said:
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.
In l espirit des lois, Montesqiueu argues that a country should only adopt legislation and laws if it fits in with that particular country's geographic, cultural, historical etc features. The draft may work in some countries, though I don't know if it does, my own native Poland abolished the practise only a few years ago, as have other EE countries, but I dont think it would work the US. Poland Israel and South Korean are all small ethnically homogenous countries where the threat of conflict from neighbouring countries hangs high. The US is a massive global superpower with a very diverse population who's military serves a very different purpose.

The US doesn't need it and the US has bad experiences with it as it featured prominently in the 2 darkest periods in the nation's history.May have been neccesary in the civil war, but it was an absolutely disaster in the Vietnam war.

Its all theoretical of course but trying to draft what must be around 40 million people into the military would be a massive cluster**** with opposition at every level from congress to the states, to individuals in courts to social protests. If it did somehow pass through im assuming the current high military budget would look like pocket change, the government would be portrayed as authoritarian and a substantial % of the population would never forgive it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
But the IRS was Lerner and DOJ was the AP. Those two bigger than Watergate scandals sort of fell in to the laps of the R's. Hard to blame them for asking follow-up questions.
Well lessee where we are with those "scandals" today.

First, Darrell Issa's take:

The Internal Revenue Service agents who inappropriately targeted conservative groups had been following orders from the Obama administration, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said on Sunday.
Hot damn, finally jackpot in the Watergate bingo!...oh wait.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Monday became the latest Republican to reject Darrell Issa's comments that White House press secretary Jay Carney is a "paid liar" in relation to the IRS controversy. But Graham went further than his Republican colleagues, saying there's no evidence that the White House ordered the tax agency to target conservative groups.
Clearly Graham didn't get the Watergate memo.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
The Hitch said:
It would not change US foreign policy. If neccesary they would find a way to work around it - eg only send elite sections of the military into foreign conflicts. These elite sections would obviously be voluntary since anyone who doesn't want to be elite won't put the work in.



In l espirit des lois, Montesqiueu argues that a country should only adopt legislation and laws if it fits in with that particular country's geographic, cultural, historical etc features. The draft may work in some countries, though I don't know if it does, my own native Poland abolished the practise only a few years ago, as have other EE countries, but I dont think it would work the US. Poland Israel and South Korean are all small ethnically homogenous countries where the threat of conflict from neighbouring countries hangs high. The US is a massive global superpower with a very diverse population who's military serves a very different purpose.

The US doesn't need it and the US has bad experiences with it as it featured prominently in the 2 darkest periods in the nation's history.May have been neccesary in the civil war, but it was an absolutely disaster in the Vietnam war.

Its all theoretical of course but trying to draft what must be around 40 million people into the military would be a massive cluster**** with opposition at every level from congress to the states, to individuals in courts to social protests. If it did somehow pass through im assuming the current high military budget would look like pocket change, the government would be portrayed as authoritarian and a substantial % of the population would never forgive it.
i see. all of that makes sense. i cannot think of anything to counter it. however, i kind of wish there were conscription for two reasons: first, i would never join the military of my own volition, but if i were drafted with my peers, i think it would have been something worth experiencing. second, like wallace, one would hope that our political leaders would be more circumspect about using the military if rich kids were in the military, too.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
What was that about rate shock in California? Oh right. Just make **** up and hope it gets picked up by the conservative press and lapped up by the "high-info" voters.

http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113362#
OMG. The author here purports to know something of health insurance in general and health insurance in Cali in particular? Not so much.

Those of us who follow health policy were waiting to see what happened in California—partly because it’s so large, and partly because it has not traditionally regulated insurers very closely.
That will shock those at the CA DOI.

Under Obamacare, premiums for some people are bound to go up, because the law requires insurers to cover people they presently turn away for pre-existing conditions—and to provide the kind of comprehensive benefits insurers frequently don’t offer when selling to people on an individual basis.
Totally false. Individuals, particularly the young, gravitate towards more catastrophic health plans. Under ACA, they will no longer have that option. A 25 year old male will be paying to subsidize female contraception among other things.

The law’s subsidies limit what most will pay for coverage, no matter how high the premiums go
Ain't it great?? It's free.

Lee was careful to point out that premiums would vary considerably depending on individual circumstances—and that some people would end up paying more than they do today.
Lee compared apples and oranges which Roy pointed out.

But lots of people would benefit from subsidies, making insurance cheaper—in some cases, a lot cheaper.
That's great. Is insurance cheaper if tax payer is paying for it? Another mischaracterization.

And even those paying more, Lee noted, would be getting a good deal: Insurance without the notorious gaps of today’s plans, at a price that was comparable to or even better than equivalent coverage available today from employers.
According to Obama himself, "if you like your current plan you'll get to keep it. Period." So now we get to rely on Peter Less telling us we are getting a "good deal." Farcical.

We also noted—as we had noted before—that some young and healthy people would have to pay more. Again, a health insurance system that no longer discriminates against the old and sick can no longer discriminate in favor of the young and healthy
What backwards thinking. This clown has no f'ing idea what the basis of (any) insurance actually is. This is an outright distortion. Young people have very little actual cost of care when looking at the total pool of people. There's no discrimination here.

This is like saying your granddad should be subsidizing my 16 year old nephews auto insurance out of basic fairness. Total BS.

As many of us have written, plenty of things could go wrong with Obamacare—and at least a few of them surely will.
Yep. Set the bar as low as possible.

If you’ve ever tried to buy insurance on your own, you have a pretty good idea of how ridiculous Roy’s experiment was. If not, go and read Ezra Klein and Rick Ungar, who over the weekend pointed out each of the many flaws. Among the problems they identified: The prices a consumer sees on eHealthInsurance are classic “teaser rates”—in this case, available only to people who don’t have pre-existing conditions. A 25-year-old with a history of allergies, or diabetes, or repetitive stress injuries, or mental health problems, or any number of other common conditions could not have gotten that rate.
Again, total BS. Most 25 year olds are extremely healthy. A few outliers have conditions that will effect their rates, but most 25 year olds don't have diabetes. Are you at all familiar with the term "underwriting?" Apparently Klein and the other bozo aren"t.

Roy never acknowledged that, even as young and healthy people would have to face higher premiums, older and sicker people would face lower premiums. He said absolutely nothing—not a single word!—about the federal subsidies available to people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty line. (That's about $46,000 a year for a single adult, or $94,000 for a family of four.)
Yeah. Because it's subsidized then it's free. You have got to be kidding me here.

Actually, the majority of people buying coverage on the exchanges will get subsidies.

Well, that's a relief. I thought they were only gonna stick it to the young people.

He could have acknowledged them, and went on to make the case that the benefits are not worth those costs—that it’s fundamentally unfair to ask young, healthy, affluent people to pay more, or that Obamacare’s whole scheme is just so inefficient as to make it worse than the alternative.1
Roy's point was valid. Sorry.

Obamacare involves real trade-offs: Higher-income people have to pay higher taxes, the health care industry has to endure lower payments from Medicare, and—yes—some young, healthy, affluent people have to pay more for private insurance. Those of us who support the law believe that's a worthwhile price to pay to help achieve universal coverage, given the lack of politically viable alternatives. Roy disagrees, I know, and he could have made that argument in a nuanced way last week.
And there you have it. First completely honest thing written in this article.

His argument hasn't held up well to scrutiny, but it's part of the political conversation and, I'm sure, will remain so for a while.
Sure it has. Only not to people who conflate lower cost with subsidies.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Well lessee where we are with those "scandals" today.

First, Darrell Issa's take:

Hot damn, finally jackpot in the Watergate bingo!...oh wait.

Clearly Graham didn't get the Watergate memo.
Let the investigation go where the info dictates. What are you afraid of?
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
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?
you pose good questions for which i have no answers. one thing we may disagree on is that money=speech. while this is settled law, this has always rubbed me the wrong way. if somehow the supreme court were to reject the money=speech idea it could open the door to spending caps. unfortunately, politicians will find ways to game this system as well. hopefully some clever people will come up with something that will get money out of politics and keep everything fair.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
you pose good questions for which i have no answers. one thing we may disagree on is that money=speech. while this is settled law, this has always rubbed me the wrong way. if somehow the supreme court were to reject the money=speech idea it could open the door to spending caps. unfortunately, politicians will find ways to game this system as well. hopefully some clever people will come up with something that will get money out of politics and keep everything fair.
Other than voting, how would one voice support for one politician over another?

I have problems with big money in politics too. I just don't know how one goes about making a structural change... particularly when those enjoying the big money would be the same ones to make the change(s).

Even the donating of one's time could be considered an unfair advantage.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's hard to account for every wingnut on the right.

But the IRS was Lerner and DOJ was the AP. Those two bigger than Watergate scandals sort of fell in to the laps of the R's. Hard to blame them for asking follow-up questions.
Bigger than the President of the United States authorizing people to commit felony breaking and entering and burglary? Really?

Prediction: Obama will not be impeached over this. Wanna put money on it?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Bigger than the President of the United States authorizing people to commit felony breaking and entering and burglary? Really?

Prediction: Obama will not be impeached over this. Wanna put money on it?
I should have put the :D after the "bigger than Watergate scandals."

I think I was quoting you.:confused:

Obama would not get impeached for anything he might someday be found to have done (if anything nefarious). He will never, never, never ever be impeached... and I'm not implying he's done anything that could be considered impeachable.

As well liked in the MSM as Obama is and as invested in him as there are, there's no way the press will ever be curious enough or would ever endorse anything like impeachment no matter what offense Obama might ever commit. No way, no how.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
OMG. The author here purports to know something of health insurance in general and health insurance in Cali in particular? Not so much.



That will shock those at the CA DOI.



Totally false. Individuals, particularly the young, gravitate towards more catastrophic health plans. Under ACA, they will no longer have that option. A 25 year old male will be paying to subsidize female contraception among other things.



Ain't it great?? It's free.



Lee compared apples and oranges which Roy pointed out.



That's great. Is insurance cheaper if tax payer is paying for it? Another mischaracterization.



According to Obama himself, "if you like your current plan you'll get to keep it. Period." So now we get to rely on Peter Less telling us we are getting a "good deal." Farcical.



What backwards thinking. This clown has no f'ing idea what the basis of (any) insurance actually is. This is an outright distortion. Young people have very little actual cost of care when looking at the total pool of people. There's no discrimination here.

This is like saying your granddad should be subsidizing my 16 year old nephews auto insurance out of basic fairness. Total BS.



Yep. Set the bar as low as possible.



Again, total BS. Most 25 year olds are extremely healthy. A few outliers have conditions that will effect their rates, but most 25 year olds don't have diabetes. Are you at all familiar with the term "underwriting?" Apparently Klein and the other bozo aren"t.



Yeah. Because it's subsidized then it's free. You have got to be kidding me here.




Well, that's a relief. I thought they were only gonna stick it to the young people.



Roy's point was valid. Sorry.



And there you have it. First completely honest thing written in this article.



Sure it has. Only not to people who conflate lower cost with subsidies.
Dude, let's try again...Roy uses teaser rates that NO ONE GETS from a website as his baseline for comparison to come up with the 64-146% increase - if the baseline is bogus then the comparison is bogus. And then on top of that, to maximize the increase he very conveniently leaves out the subsidies that, even in this bogus comparison, would've lowered the percentage increase. Why? Because his entire goal was to make that percentage as high as possible, not to be honest. Same thing he did with WI, OH, CO etc.

And you totally bought it because it's everything that you want to believe, truth be damned.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
As well liked in the MSM as Obama is and as invested in him as there are, there's no way the press will ever be curious enough or would ever endorse anything like impeachment no matter what offense Obama might ever commit. No way, no how.
Hilarious how you keep repeating that, like it's some sort of mantra that you have to chant over and over and over again. But it's not a lie if you believe it, I suppose.

You guys really do choose to live in your own alternate universe, don't you.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
States that refuse to expand Medicaid under President Barack Obama's health care reform law not only will deny health coverage to poor residents and lose access to a huge influx of federal dollars, they also will see increased spending on uninsured people's unpaid medical bills, according to a new report by the Rand Corp., a consulting firm.

The Rand Corp. analyzed 14 states with governors who oppose the Medicaid expansion. It found their actions will deprive 3.6 million people of health coverage under Obamacare, forgo $8.4 billion in federal funding, and cost them $1 billion for programs that partially compensate medical providers who care for the indigent, according to the report published in the journal "Health Affairs." Since nearly half of states may not undertake the Medicaid expansion next year, those figures could be even higher.
Irony here is that the real "death panels" are the Rs running these states who have decided that their personal ideology is far, far more important than the health of the people living in their state. :cool:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/medicaid-expansion_n_3367301.html
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Visit 1: Hey man, target tea party groups.
Visit 2: Hey, did you get the message we want you to target tea party groups?
Visit 3: Hey, about those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
Visit 4: We were wondering how the tea party targeting is going?
Visit 5: We are just making sure you clearly understand we want the tea party targeted.
Visit 6: About those tea party groups, are you targeting them?
...
Visit 115: How is the tea party targeting coming along?
...
Visit 136: Did we make clear that we wanted the tea party targeted?
...

The narrative you guys are hyperventilating over is stupid. The number of visits prove NOTHING in relation to anything. If there was any collusion on the part of Obama, it wouldn't have taken more than a single meeting to formulate the dastardly deed. But you guys keep looking for scandals because your entire narrative about the absolute necessity of massive cuts in government spending being needed is being exposed as smoke and mirrors each successive day...
Jon Stewart stole my joke...time stamp it, I came up with it before tonight's Daily Show.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Dude, let's try again...Roy uses teaser rates that NO ONE GETS from a website as his baseline for comparison to come up with the 64-146% increase - if the baseline is bogus then the comparison is bogus. And then on top of that, to maximize the increase he very conveniently leaves out the subsidies that, even in this bogus comparison, would've lowered the percentage increase. Why? Because his entire goal was to make that percentage as high as possible, not to be honest. Same thing he did with WI, OH, CO etc.

And you totally bought it because it's everything that you want to believe, truth be damned.
Too bad you or the author don't know much about how insurance works. You both are so committed to your position but are just ignorant. Nothing new and nothing fatal.

Buying insurance isn't like buying a car. You either qualify for a rate or you don't. If you are a 25 year old male who doesn't smoke and has no pre-existing conditions and isn't morbidly obese you will get the rate most 25 year old males get. It's not TEASER, it's NORMAL. Get it?

Don't f'ing talk to me about subsidies. If someone else pays for your dinner it sure as hell wasn't free. Grasp that concept? FFS.:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Hilarious how you keep repeating that, like it's some sort of mantra that you have to chant over and over and over again. But it's not a lie if you believe it, I suppose.

You guys really do choose to live in your own alternate universe, don't you.
Time to put down the bong.

Seriously, Velo. Clean it up a little.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS