|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 05 2013 05:03 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.
In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.” Source To basically sumerize this article, Jeb Bush is planning to run for president and needs an immigration plan he can defend during a republican primary.
Republicans need to stop worrying so much about the primary and learn to win an election. You can't be against immigration, planned parenthood and gay marriage anymore. Our country has moved past those things.
|
On March 05 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming? Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing. Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage: ![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/broockman_graph.png) The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark. Is it just that legislators don’t talk to their constituents? Nope. Broockman and Skovron tried and failed to find any relationship between the amount of time legislators spend in their districts, going to community events, and so forth, and the accuracy of their reads on their districts. And this bias afflicts not just their view of their constituents, but their positions generally. Consider these charts: Source
Interesting. Skimming through it I'm skeptical on the more complex questions since they require tradeoffs.
Ex.
Do you want universal healthcare? Yes!
Do you want to raise taxes? No!
But one necessitates the other and so there could be additional bias in how the questions are being interpreted by either the constituents, the politicians or both.
Another issue here is that in my experience politicians are exceptionally slow to react to changes. So it could also be that public perception or the underlying reality on issues has changed and politicians haven't figured it out yet...likely because their heads are full of wood 
|
On March 05 2013 05:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Look more closely he's trying to go to the right of Ryan and Rubio.
Thats pretty much his point. He is basically making sure he is the most conservative candidate among the main stream candidates. As already stated he is moving to the right of Ryan and Rubio on immigration. Christy has tons of issues that conservatives probably wont be able to look past and that basically leaves Jeb Bush and the most conservative main stream candidate on every single issue.
|
On March 05 2013 07:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming? Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing. Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage: The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark. Is it just that legislators don’t talk to their constituents? Nope. Broockman and Skovron tried and failed to find any relationship between the amount of time legislators spend in their districts, going to community events, and so forth, and the accuracy of their reads on their districts. And this bias afflicts not just their view of their constituents, but their positions generally. Consider these charts: Interesting. Skimming through it I'm skeptical on the more complex questions since they require tradeoffs. Ex. Do you want universal healthcare? Yes! Do you want to raise taxes? No! But one necessitates the other and so there could be additional bias in how the questions are being interpreted by either the constituents, the politicians or both. Another issue here is that in my experience politicians are exceptionally slow to react to changes. So it could also be that public perception or the underlying reality on issues has changed and politicians haven't figured it out yet...likely because their heads are full of wood
Here is one thing I never understood about our health care system, why does it cost so much? I dont understand how despite the fact that we lack a universal coverage plan which would in theory make it more expensive not less that the US somehow spends more per person than every other country on earth. Im sure there is a good reason (or at least a reason) and I am genuinly curious to hear if its something that can be fixed or if its due to being charged too much or if our system is just inherently more expensive than universal health care for some reason.
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:03 Adreme wrote:On March 05 2013 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.
In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.” Source To basically sumerize this article, Jeb Bush is planning to run for president and needs an immigration plan he can defend during a republican primary. Republicans need to stop worrying so much about the primary and learn to win an election. You can't be against immigration, planned parenthood and gay marriage anymore. Our country has moved past those things.
Your country as a whole yes, the rabid right wing base, no. The only viable strategy for a republican candidate is to basically be two people. An angry, anti-government, religious zealot during primaries, and a moderate centrist during general election. There is no type of candidate that can go through both these with his/her(lol@her, who am I kidding) policies intact. They simply require a different candidate.
The issue then is not to find someone who is the most representative of your values and interests, but to find someone who can convincingly woo both sides with two radically different messages, without appearing to actually flip-flop too much in the process.
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:03 Adreme wrote:On March 05 2013 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.
In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.” Source To basically sumerize this article, Jeb Bush is planning to run for president and needs an immigration plan he can defend during a republican primary. Republicans need to stop worrying so much about the primary and learn to win an election. You can't be against immigration, planned parenthood and gay marriage anymore. Our country has moved past those things.
I would say the country has moved past gay marriage and with that I also mean most younger reupublicans. But I certainly don't think we've moved past illegal immigration or planned parenthood.
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:03 Adreme wrote:On March 05 2013 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.
In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.” Source To basically sumerize this article, Jeb Bush is planning to run for president and needs an immigration plan he can defend during a republican primary. Republicans need to stop worrying so much about the primary and learn to win an election. You can't be against immigration, planned parenthood and gay marriage anymore. Our country has moved past those things.
I really don't think that's what it is, but I've been wrong before.
|
On March 05 2013 06:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Obama said he'd agree to $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases during the fiscal cliff fight.
Before midnight Friday night we stood at $0 of spending cuts for the 1$ of tax increases Obama got in January. Obama said he wanted more tax increases in order to agree to revenue cuts. Not at the same time of course. Tax increase now, spending cuts later (never). The time for cutting spending is never now, it's always later. It's always a lie. The real answer is spending cuts never.
He lied when he said he'd agree to $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax increases. He wants no spending cuts and tax increases out the wazoo, and he expects you dumb proles to believe him when he says he wants to cut the deficit in half, he just wants to do it in a "balanced" way.
I'm happy that John Boehner finally, finally found his balls and actually stood up to the Liar in Chief, instead of bending over like he has every other time. Maybe the president will finally realize he can't lie, and lie, and lie, and expect Republicans to still negotiate with him. I'm not betting on it. Hmm sounds just like socialists in the Netherlands :D.
You think so? To me it sounds like he watched too much Fox News.
|
On March 05 2013 07:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 05 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming? Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing. Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage: The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark. Is it just that legislators don’t talk to their constituents? Nope. Broockman and Skovron tried and failed to find any relationship between the amount of time legislators spend in their districts, going to community events, and so forth, and the accuracy of their reads on their districts. And this bias afflicts not just their view of their constituents, but their positions generally. Consider these charts: Interesting. Skimming through it I'm skeptical on the more complex questions since they require tradeoffs. Ex. Do you want universal healthcare? Yes! Do you want to raise taxes? No! But one necessitates the other and so there could be additional bias in how the questions are being interpreted by either the constituents, the politicians or both. Another issue here is that in my experience politicians are exceptionally slow to react to changes. So it could also be that public perception or the underlying reality on issues has changed and politicians haven't figured it out yet...likely because their heads are full of wood Here is one thing I never understood about our health care system, why does it cost so much? I dont understand how despite the fact that we lack a universal coverage plan which would in theory make it more expensive not less that the US somehow spends more per person than every other country on earth. Im sure there is a good reason (or at least a reason) and I am genuinly curious to hear if its something that can be fixed or if its due to being charged too much or if our system is just inherently more expensive than universal health care for some reason.
2 things:
1) Time did an article on this recently. It was actually linked here on TL, but it is a fairly long read which led to most people in the TL discussion not actually reading the article and spewing nonsense. I would definitely recommend reading it if you are truly interested though:
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/
2) Depending on your definition of a universal coverage plan, instituting one could very likely reduce the amount of administrative burden leading lower costs overall. Right now the treatment options vary greatly by your insurance and everything needs to be preapproved and god have mercy on your soul should you tick off the wrong box somewhere. The amount of paperwork is insane - I thought it was getting out of hand when I was working in Denmark, but after 8 months in the U.S. I can safely say that bureaucracy has been taken to an entirely new level over here. A universal coverage plan could also help towards getting rid of the defensive practice of medicine and the ridiculous amount of unnecessary tests to avoid lawsuits.
|
On March 05 2013 07:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 05 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Last year, a group of political scientists took a random sample of state legislators and asked them a slew of questions, most of which boiled down to: “What do your constituents think about policy?” Do they support gay marriage? Do they support Obamacare? Do they support action to combat global warming? Friend-of-the-blog David Broockman and Christopher Skovron, graduate students at Berkeley and Michigan, respectively, have released a working paper based on that research and the findings are rather astonishing. Broockman and Skovron find that all legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues. Here, for example, are their findings for health care and same-sex marriage: The X axis is the district’s actual views, and the Y axis their legislators’ estimates of their views. The thin black line is perfect accuracy, the response you’d get from a legislator totally in tune with his constituents. Lines above it would signify the politicians think the district more liberal than it actually is; if they’re below it, that means the legislators are overestimating their constituents’ conservatism. Liberal legislators consistently overestimate opposition to same-sex marriage and universal health care, but only mildly. Conservative politicians are not even in the right ballpark. Is it just that legislators don’t talk to their constituents? Nope. Broockman and Skovron tried and failed to find any relationship between the amount of time legislators spend in their districts, going to community events, and so forth, and the accuracy of their reads on their districts. And this bias afflicts not just their view of their constituents, but their positions generally. Consider these charts: Interesting. Skimming through it I'm skeptical on the more complex questions since they require tradeoffs. Ex. Do you want universal healthcare? Yes! Do you want to raise taxes? No! But one necessitates the other and so there could be additional bias in how the questions are being interpreted by either the constituents, the politicians or both. Another issue here is that in my experience politicians are exceptionally slow to react to changes. So it could also be that public perception or the underlying reality on issues has changed and politicians haven't figured it out yet...likely because their heads are full of wood Here is one thing I never understood about our health care system, why does it cost so much? I dont understand how despite the fact that we lack a universal coverage plan which would in theory make it more expensive not less that the US somehow spends more per person than every other country on earth. Im sure there is a good reason (or at least a reason) and I am genuinly curious to hear if its something that can be fixed or if its due to being charged too much or if our system is just inherently more expensive than universal health care for some reason.
Good question. I've yet to get a fully satisfactory answer on that myself.
The best that I've come up with is that there's a lot of waste. Medical procedures are tailored to individual Doctor's preferences and so cost isn't given high consideration. Hospitals operate with monopoly / oligopoly power. There's loads of overcapacity, high administrative costs and little incentive to reduce it.
Neither the private sector or the government currently has the power to enforce cost discipline and so the inefficiencies not only persist but grow (as costs have grown - slowly, over time).
The long term solution is to give more power to either the government or consumers. I'll leave that choice up to your own political preferences.
|
On March 05 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
more power to either the government or consumers. I'll leave that choice up to your own political preferences.
I submit that, for a truly radical democratic politics, the answer is: Both!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in an area where the provider is also the expert, it becomes difficult for all but the most educated consumers to control their own cost. especially when you are typically assigned doctors by insurance/referred by other doctors for expert care
|
On March 05 2013 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
in an area where the provider is also the expert, it becomes difficult for all but the most educated consumers to control their own cost. especially when you are typically assigned doctors by insurance/referred by other doctors for expert care
c.f. haute-finance
|
On March 05 2013 07:22 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2013 05:03 Adreme wrote:On March 05 2013 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.
In an interview on the Today show, NBC’s Matt Lauer host said Bush’s upcoming book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” appeared to “fall short” of offering eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Bush replied that Lauer was correct.
“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”
Bush added that “if we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming in the country.”
His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.
“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.” Source To basically sumerize this article, Jeb Bush is planning to run for president and needs an immigration plan he can defend during a republican primary. Republicans need to stop worrying so much about the primary and learn to win an election. You can't be against immigration, planned parenthood and gay marriage anymore. Our country has moved past those things. Your country as a whole yes, the rabid right wing base, no. The only viable strategy for a republican candidate is to basically be two people. An angry, anti-government, religious zealot during primaries, and a moderate centrist during general election. There is no type of candidate that can go through both these with his/her(lol@her, who am I kidding) policies intact. They simply require a different candidate. The issue then is not to find someone who is the most representative of your values and interests, but to find someone who can convincingly woo both sides with two radically different messages, without appearing to actually flip-flop too much in the process.
I am hoping someday to have a president who can actually be a leader, and actually convince people to come around to his way of thinking. It's been so long since we've had this that younger Americans probably can't even imagine what it would be like.
|
^The only thing harder to imagine than a bright communist future is a functional American electoral system, I'm afraid 
|
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are proposing a short-term budget that would ease the impact of sequestration on defense, veterans, immigration and law enforcement, while allowing the sequester's blunt cuts to hit elsewhere.
The military would not be protected from all sequestration's effects, but the new legislation would update the spending plans for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, giving priority to programs that are more important today than they were a year ago and thereby, presumably, doing less damage to national security.
The GOP proposal would also boost the budget for areas of the military not affected by the sequester and give the defense secretary greater leeway to shuffle funds among different programs. The military's operation-and-maintenance fund would increase by $10.4 billion above last year's level, for instance, while some lower-priority programs would be cut.
The bill contains additional funding as well to allow Customs and Border Protection and the FBI to avoid layoffs, and it requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to maintain 34,000 detention beds for those suspected of being undocumented immigrants.
The burden of the sequester would not be eased on any other federal program -- not anti-poverty efforts, education funding, Medicare and more.
Source
|
So the Republican solution to sequestration, which was intended to threaten both parties' sacred cows, is "hey hey, hands off our stuff"
what a shock
|
On March 05 2013 09:16 Mindcrime wrote:
So the Republican solution to sequestration, which was intended to threaten both parties' sacred cows, is "hey hey, hands off our stuff"
what a shock
The sequester has already happened, what they're doing now is a reaction to that fact. If obama and dems go against this then they're bad and hate the military and vetrens. If they do go for it then the republicans were the ones that were able to bridge the gap between the parties.
Its just good politics.
|
United States1935 Posts
On March 05 2013 09:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are proposing a short-term budget that would ease the impact of sequestration on defense, veterans, immigration and law enforcement, while allowing the sequester's blunt cuts to hit elsewhere.
The military would not be protected from all sequestration's effects, but the new legislation would update the spending plans for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, giving priority to programs that are more important today than they were a year ago and thereby, presumably, doing less damage to national security.
The GOP proposal would also boost the budget for areas of the military not affected by the sequester and give the defense secretary greater leeway to shuffle funds among different programs. The military's operation-and-maintenance fund would increase by $10.4 billion above last year's level, for instance, while some lower-priority programs would be cut.
The bill contains additional funding as well to allow Customs and Border Protection and the FBI to avoid layoffs, and it requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to maintain 34,000 detention beds for those suspected of being undocumented immigrants.
The burden of the sequester would not be eased on any other federal program -- not anti-poverty efforts, education funding, Medicare and more. Source
I was pretty sad when I realized your source for this wasn't the Onion.
The research on considering constituents more conservative than they are is an odd one, not what I would have expected at all. There's got to be a better way than town hall meetings in this age to gather more accurate data on how your constituency feels about specific issues. There is something hilariously appropriate about Democratic legislators trying to please an audience further to the right than actually exists. For as much press as there is over proudly far right conservatives, I've always wondered why there aren't equally as bold and as far left of center liberals.
|
On March 05 2013 09:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 09:16 Mindcrime wrote:
So the Republican solution to sequestration, which was intended to threaten both parties' sacred cows, is "hey hey, hands off our stuff"
what a shock The sequester has already happened, what they're doing now is a reaction to that fact. If obama and dems go against this then they're bad and hate the military and vetrens. If they do go for it then the republicans were the ones that were able to bridge the gap between the parties. Its just good politics.
The Republicans already tried this during the deficit talks and didn't work, plus it doesn't help when the Tea Party is advocating cuts all across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/positions_broockman.png)
