US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1418

"Are we going to be able to close this final gap so that (Iran) can re-enter the international community, sanctions can be slowly reduced and we have verifiable, lock-tight assurances that they can't develop a nuclear weapon?" Obama asked.

"There's still a big gap. We may not be able to get there," he said.

Monday round-up

By Amy Howe on Nov 10, 2014 at 8:09 am

On Friday afternoon, the Court announced that it would review a challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for taxpayers who purchase their health insurance on a marketplace – known as an exchange – established by the federal government. Lyle Denniston covered the grant for this blog; contributors to our “snap symposium” on the grant included Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck, and Jonathan H. Adler. Other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, William Mears of CNN, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, who suggests that, “from the standpoint of the Barack Obama administration, there is reason to be curiously concerned that the president’s signature legislative accomplishment is in jeopardy once again,” and from Roger Parloff of Fortune, who contends that, “[w]hatever [the Court] does, the outcome will define Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s legacy more than any case since he ascended the bench nine years ago.”

On November 10 2014 22:18 RCMDVA wrote:
USCC taking up the Obamacare subsidies issue. Case should be decided in the next 7 months. So I'd expect the House/Senate to hold back on anything Obamacare related until this is resolved.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

On November 11 2014 03:14 oneofthem wrote:
you laugh but i think a non-regressive kind of lottery could be used to 'throw money into the streets' more directly than QE and stuff.

On November 11 2014 04:44 oneofthem wrote:
lottery is highly regressive because poor people spend their income on it. it's mainly about propensity to play it rather than the negative return rate. a non-regressive lottery would be something like a free ticket for everyone below a certain wealth level or something of the sort.

but obviously just a fun scenario not realistic at all.

On November 11 2014 04:30 Wolfstan wrote:


What do you mean by non-regressive lottery?

On a HBO related note, what do you think of Bill Maher's rant on proportional representation in the senate?

California, a state with 33 million people, gets two senators. 8 Red states, with a combined total population of 33 million people, gets 16 senators. As Maher put it, the Senate "over represents rural people, not real people".

Isn't the senate's purpose in America to represent the states interests, not the citizens?

On November 11 2014 06:05 RCMDVA wrote:
Another Obamacare story just hit. Only 9.9 million signups, not 13 million.

That is bad. Like really, really bad. -30% sign ups + employer mandate hitting at the same time.

Gov't slashes 2015 Obamacare sign-up forecast by 30%

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102169534

(and I think the SC case won't go anywhere, just gives the R's cover for a few months)...

On November 11 2014 07:08 Doublemint wrote:


Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.

On Monday, President Barack Obama came out in favor of the "strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," endorsing a popular proposal that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally and not charge content providers for better access.

"We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas," Obama said in a statement.

The FCC is currently weighing whether ISPs, such as Verizon and Comcast, can choose to block or prioritize delivering traffic to certain websites. The consideration comes in the wake of a federal appeals court ruling in January that struck down the rules that barred companies from doing so. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC was considering a "hybrid" compromise that would empower ISPs to make deals with companies to allow for faster content delivery, while still allowing for oversight.

Obama's plan provides for more regulation than that. He's backing a proposal that would reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, treating the service as a public utility. Under that section, it's illegal "to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services."

Obama is also asking for a ban on paid prioritization, a practice that allows companies to put service in the "slow lane" if a content provider doesn't pay a fee.

On November 11 2014 07:35 Chewbacca. wrote:


Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said on Monday that impeaching President Obama "would be a consideration" if he moves forward unilaterally on immigration.

Barton's comments were made during an interview with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who now hosts NewsMaxTV's "America's Forum."

Barton was asked about the possibility that Obama could take executive action to slow deportations.

“Well impeachment is indicting in the House and that’s a possibility. But you still have to convict in the Senate and that takes a two-thirds vote," Barton said. "But impeachment would be a consideration, yes sir."