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

U.S. Politics

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
I like the refererence to stimulus/jobs created=cost per job

Its like saying that dod budget (672b (?) / total us military personel (3.34m) see here PDF = total cost to support soldier (201,197 usd)

Outrageous! One us military job costs > 200k
Of the two, which is the Federal Government obligated to do?
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Re. The US being brutal during Cold War:

I think Hitch is referring to Korea, and especially Viet Nam.

Different times though.
Oh come on Alpe, you cant expect me to answer this without giving me a "post on topic please " warning:p

Of course wars such as Korea and Vietnam play a part.

Its not just that they invaded some countries, I don't see invasions themselves as being bad purely by definition, as most seem to.

But I think a bigger part is the way they brought about extremist regimes in many countries purely to add another ally to the Us side of the cold war.

Today Us allies itself with some dictators for its own gain but in the cold war they often destroyed stability in order to bring dictators into power just to have another ally agains the even more brutal soviets.

From the 70's you have for example Kissinger meeting General Suharto the day before Indonesia invades East Timor. Or further north the now known but then secret bombing of Cambodia (which helped make Cambodia absolute hell on earth a few years later.)

10 000 miles away, the family of a conservative (not socialist) judge who was assasinated after saying that Allende had gotten power legitimately, believe they have enough evidence to take Kissinger to court.

http://www.frankolsonproject.org/News/Kissinger-Frame.html

From the post Kissinger era you have the Iran Contra affair proving that the US funded both sides of a brutal war. a million dead on each side. Us funds both sides, essentially just pays money for people to be killed.

El Salvador is another famous example. The Us supported the dictatorship. The James Woods film cant remember the name shows just how frustrating the logic behind this was, even to someone who doesnt burn the American flag every morning.


Or to put it in simpler terms today people are shocked to hear Us soldiers have mistreated prisoners and disrespected coffins. In the 1970's people were shocked to hear that a handful of US soldiers went into a village and decided to simply massacre by hand the entire mostly women and children population.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I read it to mean a BA or BS, which one does not need in order to be a RN.

Most don't refer to an AA as a degree.

One can become a RN with as little as nursing diploma according to what I can find.

You disagree with one point made so therefore all points made are crap? Okay.
The article compared registered nurses with “home health aides”, customer service representatives, food preparation workers and “personal home care aides”. There's just no comparison in terms of education, skills, knowledge, responsibility etc.

Nursing is a minimum two-year degree with a licensing exam. But apparently 'most wouldn't refer to that as a degree'. Can I get a source for this claim?

The imbecile who wrote the article simply didn't do his research. So yeah, the article is pretty much cr@p.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Of the two, which is the Federal Government obligated to do?
I hope you weren't arguing its constitutionality, but in any case, the answer is:

Both.

Article 1 section 1
All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Congress of the US, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of representatives.

(meaning Congress makes laws and the President implements them. These include appropriations bill for defence and many other, including general welfare purposes)

Article 1 Section 8
The the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US [...]

Apparently Clarified in US v. Butler

Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution
Apparently in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, challenging social security, SCOTUS, held that:

relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation “to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Scott, the stimulus-unemployment chart is based on monthly govt statistics. He didn't just make it up, he just plotted it and put in a note when the Recovery Act began.

GM: it is, again, the largest car manufacturer in the world (partially because of Toyota's problems after the tsunami, granted), it is once again profitable, and it is once again creating jobs. You and the Rs can argue against it all you want, and god I hope you do, but the auto bailout is turning out to be a terrific success.

Unemployment: is it trending up or down, scott?

You asked what Obama is going to run on. That's what he's going to run on.

Just out of curiosity, how would Romney or Gingrich be any different than GW Bush?
Here is another statistic. 65% of the population used to participate in the workforce. It's now down to 60% (give or take). These people are not even counted anymore, but they are not working.

Where does this show up on your graph?

but the auto bailout is turning out to be a terrific success.
The last chapters of this book have not been written yet. Take a closer look at the un-funded pension situation. There will be more pain and it's not that far down the road.

Unemployment: is it trending up or down, scott?
The feds aren't counting the 5% not participating in the workforce. The real unemployment is over 11% and that's not counting the underemployed.

To be fair, the unemployment numbers are falling. But we can't even have a real conversation about what the number really are or what they really show.

Just out of curiosity, how would Romney or Gingrich be any different than GW Bush?
Foreign policy would be similar (similar to BO as well). Domestically, I think both of them will actually put policy in place to reduce growth in spending. I think both of them have a better idea of what business needs are. I think both are ready to kill Obamacare. I think both are more conservative fiscally than W was/is... My $0.02
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
The article compared registered nurses with “home health aides”, customer service representatives, food preparation workers and “personal home care aides”. There's just no comparison in terms of education, skills, knowledge, responsibility etc.

Nursing is a minimum two-year degree with a licensing exam. But apparently 'most wouldn't refer to that as a degree'. Can I get a source for this claim?

The imbecile who wrote the article simply didn't do his research. So yeah, the article is pretty much cr@p.
Home health aides and personal home care aides for most companies offering this service in Cali require the "aide" to be at least an LVN, so they are comparable (at least here). A person can sit for the NCLEX-RN with as little as a Nursing Diploma (hence no degree). There's a licensing exam to be a cosmetologist or a massage therapist, so what? You don't like the comparison, fine... again, so what? Does that technically make him wrong?

You show up for a job interview that is asking for a BS with an AA and I'm guessing the prospective employer will not consider the prerequisite met, but what do I know?

The imbecile who wrote the article simply didn't do his research
Maybe you should do a little checking as to what is required to become an RN,... in this case the imbecile looks to be correct.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Foreign policy would be similar (similar to BO as well). Domestically, I think both of them will actually put policy in place to reduce growth in spending. I think both of them have a better idea of what business needs are. I think both are ready to kill Obamacare. I think both are more conservative fiscally than W was/is... My $0.02
Neither plan to cut defense spending. Both pledge to lower taxes - ie lower revenues - for the rich. Both have pledged that they'll never, ever raise taxes ('cept the poor and middle class). So with their hands tied on the revenue side, the deficit and the debt will increase greatly unless they introduce massive cuts in social programs - education, medicare, social security, etc - which will be hugely unpopular, and no member of Congress is going to support unless he/she wants to commit political suicide. Which means it's not going to happen.

btw killing "Obamacare" will increase the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years, according to the CBO - add that to the deficit under Romney/Gingrich as well.

That's a lot of cutting when you've promised Grover that you won't raise his taxes.

Complete, utter recipe for disaster, and yes, it'll be GW Bush all over again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
I hope you weren't arguing its constitutionality, but in any case, the answer is:

Both.

Article 1 section 1
All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Congress of the US, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of representatives.

(meaning Congress makes laws and the President implements them. These include appropriations bill for defence and many other, including general welfare purposes)

Article 1 Section 8
The the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US [...]

Apparently Clarified in US v. Butler



Apparently in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, challenging social security, SCOTUS, held that:
In this case I am guessing that we will differ on the definition of "obligated".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Neither plan to cut defense spending. Both pledge to lower taxes - ie lower revenues - for the rich. Both have pledged that they'll never, ever raise taxes ('cept the poor and middle class). So with their hands tied on the revenue side, the deficit and the debt will increase greatly unless they introduce massive cuts in social programs - education, medicare, social security, etc - which will be hugely unpopular, and no member of Congress is going to support unless he/she wants to commit political suicide. Which means it's not going to happen.

btw killing "Obamacare" will increase the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years, according to the CBO - add that to the deficit under Romney/Gingrich as well.

That's a lot of cutting when you've promised Grover that you won't raise his taxes.

Complete, utter recipe for disaster, and yes, it'll be GW Bush all over again.
Both pledge to lower taxes - ie lower revenues
I don't accept this premise.

the deficit and the debt will increase greatly unless they introduce massive cuts in social programs - education, medicare, social security, etc - which will be hugely unpopular, and no member of Congress is going to support unless he/she wants to commit political suicide. Which means it's not going to happen.
You mean like under this President? Base-line budgeting could be modified... hell, the Mack Penny Plan could be put in place... there are dozens of ways t reduce spending (reduce the rate of growth for starters) without creating havoc.

But, by God, this Government will NEVER be able to do with less. NEVER!

btw killing "Obamacare" will increase the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years, according to the CBO
LMAO. Hopefully you don't really believe this.

Has replaced Carl Rove as the boogeyman du jour.

Complete, utter recipe for disaster,
Better or worse than now?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I don't accept this premise.
Course you don't. Doesn't fit the meme.


You mean like under this President? Base-line budgeting could be modified... hell, the Mack Penny Plan could be put in place... there are dozens of ways t reduce spending (reduce the rate of growth for starters) without creating havoc.

But, by God, this Government will NEVER be able to do with less. NEVER!
How 'bout we do what any sensible country would do - and what Ronnie Reagan did - and increase taxes to go along with spending cuts?



LMAO. Hopefully you don't really believe this.
CBO. Non-partisan group. Their own calculations. Again, doesn't fit the meme though, does it.



Has replaced Carl Rove as the boogeyman du jour.
Even some Rs think Grover has too much influence.



Better or worse than now?
It'll make GW Bush look like an amateur.

btw, how will massive spending cuts affect unemployment?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Home health aides and personal home care aides for most companies offering this service in Cali require the "aide" to be at least an LVN, so they are comparable (at least here). A person can sit for the NCLEX-RN with as little as a Nursing Diploma (hence no degree). There's a licensing exam to be a cosmetologist or a massage therapist, so what? You don't like the comparison, fine... again, so what? Does that technically make him wrong?

You show up for a job interview that is asking for a BS with an AA and I'm guessing the prospective employer will not consider the prerequisite met, but what do I know?



Maybe you should do a little checking as to what is required to become an RN,... in this case the imbecile looks to be correct.
I know precisely what is required to become a RN, thank you very much.

As to my question ... crickets,
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In this case I am guessing that we will differ on the definition of "obligated".
That's pretty vague. What's your definition? It would be great if you could also reference that.

The preamble to the constitution actually also has an interesting choice of words:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
It almost sounds communist :eek:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Course you don't. Doesn't fit the meme.


How 'bout we do what any sensible country would do - and what Ronnie Reagan did - and increase taxes to go along with spending cuts?



CBO. Non-partisan group. Their own calculations. Again, doesn't fit the meme though, does it.



Even some Rs think Grover has too much influence.



It'll make GW Bush look like an amateur.

btw, how will massive spending cuts affect unemployment?
Course you don't. Doesn't fit the meme.
One could point (once again) to the data, but why? What would be the point? You don't believe the numbers, you know what you know.

How 'bout we do what any sensible country would do - and what Ronnie Reagan did - and increase taxes to go along with spending cuts?
BTW, how will massive tax increases affect unemployment?

Do we really have to go over (again) what happened in the Reagan years? And show me where the spending was cut during the Reagan years 'cause I musta missed that.

CBO. Non-partisan group. Their own calculations. Again, doesn't fit the meme though, does it.
Not a meme. the CBO didn't count on being lied to by the administration. It kinda messes up your assumptions when Sebelius tells a Half trillion dollar lie, or don't you remember? Also, did the CBO re-calculate the savings after all the annual waivers have been handed out? Didn't think so....

Even some Rs think Grover has too much influence.
Probably time to stop reading the dailykos.

btw, how will massive spending cuts affect unemployment?
Don't worry, the tax cuts will make up for it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
As to my question ... crickets,
For all of you keeping score at home, I am assuming this is the question;

Nursing is a minimum two-year degree with a licensing exam. But apparently 'most wouldn't refer to that as a degree'. Can I get a source for this claim?
I apologize Cobbles. Apparently most agree that an AA is in fact a degree.

Scoreboard, Cobbles 1, SoCal 0.

Nursing is a minimum two-year degree with a licensing exam.
I know precisely what is required to become a RN, thank you very much.
hmmmm...

Perhaps we should just get back on topic. I concede the victory to you.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
They certainly were. Sadly, it looks like I'll never find out, since The Hitch who knows everything about US politics and history better from books has me on ignore.:D

I'm thrilled, my first ignore.:cool:
It won't last. The Babes on Bikes thread will draw him back! :D
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Do we really have to go over (again) what happened in the Reagan years? And show me where the spending was cut during the Reagan years 'cause I musta missed that.
Exactly. Spending wasn't cut at all, was it. Rs have never shown any concern about deficits or the debt once they're actually in power, not least of all because they hit the brick wall of political reality of having to deal with a recalcitrant Congress. As many like to point out re: Obama, rhetoric is cheap, but action is tough. What makes you think Romney or Gingrich will be any different, esp if it's a Dem Congress? Neither are going to propose deep cuts in SS or Medicare etc once they're in a position to do so, unless they want to see their approval ratings plummet and become one-term presidents, and even if they did, it's never going to make it out of the House or Senate. They can't cut defense or raise taxes. So then what?

Don't worry, the tax cuts will make up for it.
Like how the Bush tax cuts led to lower unemployment?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
The Hitch said:
Or to put it in simpler terms today people are shocked to hear Us soldiers have mistreated prisoners and disrespected coffins. In the 1970's people were shocked to hear that a handful of US soldiers went into a village and decided to simply massacre by hand the entire mostly women and children population.
I disagree with you on this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Exactly. Spending wasn't cut at all, was it. Rs have never shown any concern about deficits or the debt once they're actually in power, not least of all because they hit the brick wall of political reality of having to deal with a recalcitrant Congress. As many like to point out re: Obama, rhetoric is cheap, but action is tough. What makes you think Romney or Gingrich will be any different, esp if it's a Dem Congress? Neither are going to propose deep cuts in SS or Medicare etc once they're in a position to do so, unless they want to see their approval ratings plummet and become one-term presidents, and even if they did, it's never going to make it out of the House or Senate. They can't cut defense or raise taxes. So then what?

Like how the Bush tax cuts led to lower unemployment?
Exactly. Spending wasn't cut at all, was it. Rs have never shown any concern about deficits or the debt once they're actually in power, not least of all because they hit the brick wall of political reality of having to deal with a recalcitrant Congress.
In Reagan's own words;

" I made a deal with Congressional Democrats in 1982 (TEFRA), agreeing to support a limited loophole closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 Billion over three years in return for their agreement to cut spending by $280 Billion during the same period; later the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts".

Page 314/315

http://books.google.com/books?id=cYnFVI7PW1YC&pg=PA314&dq=%22the+Democrats+reneged+on+their+pledge+%28to+cut+spending%29+and+we+never%22&hl=en&ei=9NMuTv7UG-fg0QHly8nQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reagan would later say that agreeing to TEFRA was one of the great regrets of his Presidency.

Neither are going to propose deep cuts in SS or Medicare etc once they're in a position to do so, unless they want to see their approval ratings plummet and become one-term presidents, and even if they did, it's never going to make it out of the House or Senate. They can't cut defense or raise taxes. So then what?
Then in a decade or two the great experiment will be over.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Did anyone read Mitt's 59 point plan? On day one he plans to introduce these bills (doesn't mean they will pass)

FIVE BILLS FOR DAY ONE
The American Competitiveness Act
• Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
The Open Markets Act
• Implements the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements
The Domestic Energy Act
• Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
The Retraining Reform Act
• Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states
The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
• Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion

Bold first day moves. Visionary. I see tax cuts, FTAs that passed already last year (now: 58 point plan), commissioning a study, consolidating programs, and cutting spending.

25m jobs added within 6 months. Guaranteed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
Latest Rasmussen Reports poll: Gingrich 41%, Romney 32% (1/22)

The previous poll (on 1/12) had Romney ahead by 22% :eek:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary

Scott: I'm curious as to which Republican candidate you prefer and why.
Palin. (that was a joke).

Rubio... but he didn't run (not joking).

I think I like Governor McDonnell of Virginia but I have not looked real closely at him.

Not sure about Chris Christie just yet.


I'm still of the opinion Romney will get this nomination and I still think he will beat Obama.

The only reason I 'prefer' Romney is that I think he has the best chance of winning. I have some problems with him but I believe he would do positive things economic policy-wise that Obama simply will not do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS