US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1430

On November 15 2014 06:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Didn't Mitch McConnell specifically say he was not interested in shutting down the government right after the elections? Let's see if he can actually control his band of merry men.

On November 15 2014 01:10 Danglars wrote:
What are you on about? I sincerely tried to find what you were trying to say in the quoted section, but could not.

On November 15 2014 01:28 Nyxisto wrote:

Your tendency to play down American foreign policy adventures that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives for no apparent reason as some kind of unlucky accident.

On November 15 2014 08:02 Sandvich wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/
Guess you didn't look very hard Danglars.

On November 15 2014 06:05 IgnE wrote:


What an absurdity. Some people called citizens protected by laws they didn't vote for, nor did they even vote for the voter who did, either through time or history. Some people called foreigners not protected by laws they too didn't vote for, unable to immigrate to places where they prefer the laws, and subject to the unlawful, murderous military actions of a rogue state.

On November 15 2014 06:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Didn't Mitch McConnell specifically say he was not interested in shutting down the government right after the elections? Let's see if he can actually control his band of merry men.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today that the Pentagon is aiming to invest about 10 percent more over the next five years to upgrade the nation's nuclear deterrent, following reviews that uncovered "systemic problems" in the system.

Hagel said the U.S. was "probably looking at a 10 percent increase" in spending, according to Reuters, which said internal and external reviews have made some 100 recommendations on improving the nuclear forces.

"The root cause has been lack of sustained focus, attention and resources, resulting in a pervasive sense that a career in a nuclear enterprise offers too few opportunities for growth and advancement," the defense secretary said at a Pentagon news conference.

The Pentagon reports "are a searing indictment of how the Air Force's and Navy's aging nuclear weapons facilities, silos and submarine fleet have been allowed to decay since the end of the Cold War," The New York Times writes.

According to the newspaper, inspectors over the years "ignored huge problems, including aging blast doors over 60-year-old silos that would not seal shut and, in one case, the discovery that the crews that maintain the nation's 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles had only a single wrench that could attach the nuclear warheads."

WASHINGTON –- President Barack Obama will pledge $3 billion this weekend to an international fund that helps developing countries address climate change, in yet another move seen as important to advancing cooperation toward a global climate agreement.

The fund, known as the Green Climate Fund, was created four years ago as a way to help poorer countries cut their own greenhouse gas emissions to stem future climate change, as well as adapt to changes that are already happening. The announcement is expected to come at this weekend's G-20 meeting in Australia, a senior administration official told The New York Times on Friday.

While aid organizations were hoping for a higher commitment from the U.S., they said the announcement was crucial to advancing negotiations on a climate deal. "It's going to be an important step that the U.S. is announcing," said Heather Coleman, climate change policy manager at Oxfam America. Coleman added that Oxfam had hoped for a larger amount of money -- closer to $4.8 billion -- but said it was still critical that the U.S. offered a pledge.

Other countries, including France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Mexico and South Korea, have already announced pledges to the fund, bringing the total amount committed, including the U.S.' contribution, to $6 billion. At a United Nations summit on climate change in September, some leaders of developing countries expressed frustration at the time it was taking the U.S. and other developed countries to offer their pledges to the fund.

Other developed nations, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and Australia, still have not offered pledges. The countries party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change had set an original target of getting $10-15 billion pledged to the fund before the next negotiating meeting in Lima this December.

On November 15 2014 12:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Don't expect much or any from Australia, also I'm starting to realize what other have said in this thread from time to time. Europe is becoming a caricature of itself when it comes to the Green movement..



Source

In a 2011 conversation about the Affordable Care Act, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the law more commonly known as Obamacare, talked about how the bill would get rid of all tax credits for employer-based health insurance through "mislabeling" what the tax is and who it would hit.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber -- who in a 2010 speech noted that he "helped write the federal bill" and "was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well" -- have been given renewed attention.
In previously posted but only recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an "exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," taking advantage of voters' "stupidity" to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.
Jay Carney: Gruber harmful to Obama Shocking remarks by Obamacare consultant Democrats denounce Obamacare architect Obamacare adviser reacts to enrollment
The issue at hand in this sixth video is known as the "Cadillac tax," which was represented as a tax on employers' expensive health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.
"Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance," Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston. The subsidy is "terrible policy," Gruber said.
"It turns out politically it's really hard to get rid of," Gruber said. "And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."

On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:
Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.

Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant!

On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:
Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.

Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant!

On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:
Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.

Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant!

On November 15 2014 17:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


Just curious what people think would be better about the healthcare system without the ACA. I mean like concrete improvements, not ethereal 'more free marketplace' type stuff?

Because there have been very real improvements for those with pre-existing conditions, or up against lifetime caps, or those with special needs children, or those who had no insurance at all.

Who would repealing it help and how? Because it's clear it would hurt those groups.

On November 15 2014 18:01 oneofthem wrote:

get off your pony this guy is just talking honest policy.

On November 15 2014 18:15 IgnE wrote:


It matters in the trivial sense that it helped get the law passed sure. But it's not fraud. People read ACA when it was drafted and voted on it. Did they write it in a particular way that was necessitated by the politics of the time? Yes. Is it somehow something different than what Congress voted on? No. The guy is talking about basic public relations. Calling it "lying" is a stretch. This is nothing like the NSA's lying or deception. Seriously. Save your outrage for something else.