US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1573

On January 13 2015 08:45 coverpunch wrote:

Don't worry, in the big race all of California's delegates are going for the Democrats. I've heard some rumblings about Jerry Brown making a run for the Democratic nomination and that's a much more interesting conversation IMO. He'll never be president because he's a classic tax and spend liberal, but you don't get to be governor of California twice in two separate decades because you can't play the game.

On January 13 2015 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


I suppose being some sort of a quasi-Creationist isn't considered imploding for conservatives? It's kind of hard to comprehend exactly what he was saying. Maybe Intro wants to take a whack at what he means?

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/carson-evolution-is-a-myth

On January 13 2015 09:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The tech factor comes from the CBO: Link Maybe it's wrong, but I'd like to see evidence. I assume the rule change you're referring to is MACRS and the like? I don't think that's a factor here since MACRS only applies to taxes. Not sure about your comments on profit share either since profit share was higher in the 50's and 60's, the the rise didn't start until the early 80's and then more significantly in the 90's.

On January 13 2015 11:41 oneofthem wrote:

it's not wrong, but i dont think it is the only factor.

the depreciation rule change in the 70's was mainly the ADR System, and MACRS was a further modification of this system. it basically allowed accelerated depreciation relative to the old straightline method.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota64.pdf

the profit trend is something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/I1V3Sm3.jpg

Consumption of fixed capital differs from the value of depreciation reported on tax returns. The NIPAs include a “capital consumption adjustment” to account for the difference.

What organizers are calling the largest-ever strike by U.S. mental health care workers began Monday in California, when 2,600 employees of the hospital chain Kaiser Permanente walked off the job. The strikers, all affiliated with the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), accuse Kaiser Permanente of failing to keep its mental health services adequately staffed.

Many regions of the country are running low on mental health care workers, but NUHW says Kaiser Permanente's failure to recruit more staff for its mental health services is directly endangering patients.

NUHW employees have been attempting to negotiate a contract with Kaiser for more than four years. And this is not their first strike against the company. But it will be the first NUHW work stoppage to last a whole week — a clear escalation in the ongoing labor dispute.

In addition to the 2,600 mental health clinicians on strike, NUHW said that 700 other members would refuse to go to work this week. They will return to work the following Monday. In the meantime, California media have reported that Kaiser locations will remain open to provide emergency services, while non-urgent appointments will be rescheduled.

Mental health professionals are in short supply nationwide. In 2013, 91 million U.S. adults lived in regions of the country experiencing a shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Philip Muskin, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University's medical school, said the shortage is likely to "only get worse."

"There aren't enough psychiatrists," he said. "That's not true everywhere — there are enough psychiatrists in Manhattan — but there are many areas that are terrible underserved."

NUHW President Sal Rosselli said the point of the strike is “to focus attention on critical patient care for mental health care patients” — particularly on the problem of inadequate staffing, which the union says presents a direct threat to the mental health of Kaiser patients.

On January 13 2015 08:33 Introvert wrote:
They're both losers and I don't like either, so I haven't thought about any race between the two. We'll see how the primaries look by the time California's rolls around. I won't waste my time unless I have no other options.

Not that my vote would matter. If memory serves CA Republicans go moderate most of the time anyway.

On January 13 2015 08:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Both. Romney would be a third time loser, and as for Bush the conservatives have never liked powerful families let alone political dynasties. Not to mention say Bush wins the Primaries and during the acceptance speech and the balloons start falling, who joins him on stage which members of the family?

California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) will announce her intention to run for California's open Senate seat on Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed report.

Harris, who has first elected to her post in 2010, has been widely expected to run for the seat currently occupied by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Boxer announced her intention to retire last week. It is the first time California has had an open Senate seat since 1992.

A Harris spokesperson did not immediately return The Huffington Post's request for comment.

Earlier Monday, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said he would not seek the seat. Newsom hinted to the Los Angeles Times that he would support Harris if she chose to run, but denied that he and Harris had struck a deal in which he would back her Senate bid if she supported his gubernatorial aspirations.

On January 13 2015 17:01 coverpunch wrote:

Huh, lots of intrigue in California politics recently. This seems very well orchestrated to move all the good Democratic soldiers up the chain and position everyone nicely for 2016. Newsom for governor, Harris for Senate, Boxer probably lining up behind Clinton or whoever the Democratic candidate is, and Brown probably taking a run and/or retiring soon.

Feels very much like the upper echelons of Baltimore from the Wire in the last couple seasons. Republicans are such a joke in CA that they apparently don't factor into any of this.

On January 13 2015 22:22 LimpingGoat wrote:
At this point looks pretty definite that Romney is running. Thoughts on if he can get the nomination, and if he can, can he get elected?

On January 13 2015 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well I guess the rumor is he is going to run to the right of Bush. If he just goes hard right he could eat up enough of the conservative support to give Bush the easy in. Presumably he'd get some sweetheart deal that netted him a lot of money/power/prestige.

If Romney runs basically where he was last campaign he eats into moderates and gives Conservatives a chance, if they can pick someone to rally around (the fact that they don't have a hard top 3 is a sign they will be far too late). If he runs a little harder right than last year and liberals up later in the nomination process, he could somehow end up being the nominee again (by being the more conservative of the two remaining) and conservatives will have no one to blame but themselves for getting Romney again.

Right now Romney goes to the highest bidder and Bush has deep pockets and cargo pants. So my bet is Bush running Romney as a conservative blocker. He'll talk Mitt into going full blown "Cantalope calves" and no one will buy it really, but it will force whatever conservative has a chance, to match his crazy.

I imagine Romney coming out and endorsing some mass deportation immigration law. Or something equally divisive where reasonable and/or moderate Republicans side with Bush's "principled position" and the conservative hope has to either endorse mass deportation or be seen as being more liberal than Mitt Romney.

Immigration makes the most sense as Romney showed there aren't enough right leaning white people for them to pick a president themselves. So Repulicans need some more of either the black, brown, and/or independent vote. Seeing as how they put "David Duke without the baggage" in leadership they kissed off the black vote. Wedging a mass deportation policy discussion into the discourse would pretty much force any hard conservative candidate to disqualify themselves from a national election. Which would force Republicans into yet another "electable" nominee despite conservatives best efforts.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans to introduce an amendment to the Keystone XL pipeline bill that would force Republican senators to go on the record about whether they think climate change is real and manmade, the New York Times reported Monday.

Sanders already floated the resolution last week when the Keystone legislation was in the Energy Committee, where it was tabled. The resolution's language states that "climate change is real; climate change is caused by human activities; climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world."

The resolution concludes by saying that "it is imperative that the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy." Sanders's office told TPM that the language could still be revised before the amendment is filed on the floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has promised an "open amendment process" in the new Congress, which would suggest that the Sanders resolution might actually get a vote.

On January 14 2015 02:45 dabom88 wrote:
I'd probably say my bet goes to Rand Paul getting the nomination. Either that or someone who's relatively unknown compared to the others. I don't see Jeb Bush, Romney, Christie, or Scott Brown getting the nomination. And those names seem to be the big names right now, and all of them have big marks on their history that I think moderates would be averse to.

On January 14 2015 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Walker would have to answer for his economic policies and if it wasn't for the soon to be bankrupt state of Kansas his sate would be the policy to avoid.