|
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 May 05 2015 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 13:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 05 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 12:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 05 2015 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 12:22 oneofthem wrote:i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpufseems rather wild to claim that the epa would agree to a 6m figure for non-co2 pollutants. there's nothing in that link about the amount from carbon you gotta come up withs omething else Not saying that's the case here, but the EPA does put out benefit estimates that are, to be kind, speculative. The EPA's mandate is human health, finances don't play any role in it IIRC? Whitman vs American Trucking. Finances? I'm talking about their benefit estimates. You just cited some in your previous post. Wrong guy, first time chiming in on this issue  While I can accept that benefit estimates are probably off because the criteria for what is actually a benefit is so subjective, it's kind of a no brainer that reducing our reliance on coal is probably good for the environment. It seems on one end the energy companies are using a number that only includes the bare benefits, like x less tons of carbon released times whatever the credit value per ton is, while the EPA does some estimate that includes x number of people don't get ill, their increased productivity, reduced medical costs, etc. The reality is hard to quantify, but going under the EPA's court approved mandate this is all just some finger waggling and semantics more or less. The reality is, far as I understand, as long as the EPA can pull out some scientific evidence that coal is bad (which is easy as making a pb&j), they don't necessarily need to quantify *how* bad it is (financially). whoops, my bad, it's late here. I've read before that the epa will do things like extrapolate from what is known, into what is unknown. So pollution above x level is known to have a negative health effect. EPA lowers pollution below x and assumes the benefits are tangible, even though there is no scientific evidence that the benefit exists. What do you mean extrapolate from known into unknown? The PPM limits and all that jazz probably have some basis in science--- it just becomes hard to quantify the financial benefit, and the fact there's a limit that takes practicality into account (because we ideally would have 0 sulfuric acid being emitted) is already reasonablish to me. I'm not very versed in pollution health effects (was not covered in my immunology class, we went behind schedule), but IIRC there's a sort of logarithmic curve health quality/impacts plotted against pollution concentration, and the EPA tends to set the limit somewhere before the rapid increase. Of course, that's an idealized model with limitations etc. etc. etc. We can only really do so much research about it, the only real way to determine these inflection points (if they even exist) is to just monitor populations lol. Let's say pollutant X the limit is established at 1000. How much "benefit" do you reap at say 500 vs 700 PPM? Both are under the limit, but how much better is 500 vs 700? Again, the criteria are subjective but ultimately irrelevant. The EPA has to regulate human health, cost benefit does not necessarily need to play a role in it. They already meet a standard of reasonableness with "practical" PPM limits.
By known to unknown I mean that some substances will be known to cause harm above a certain amount. In toxicology there's a common phrase: 'the dose makes the poison.' To give an example, fluoride is toxic in large doses, but it is also good for your teeth in small doses and so is added to toothpaste and drinking water.
As it relates to the EPA, things will be known to be harmful above a known threshold. When writing rules to limit those things below that known threshold, the EPA will assume that the benefits continue. In a case like that it is possible that there will be no benefits from a reduction, yet the benefits will still be added to the cost benefit analysis.
The EPA has also changed a lot of how they calculate benefits in the past few years and frankly many of their numbers seem unrealistically high, particularly since most air pollutants have already been substantially reduced. + Show Spoiler + TE had a few articles on this a while back. Here's one:
+ Show Spoiler +Measuring the impact of regulation
The rule of more
Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial under Barack Obama
IN DECEMBER Barack Obama trumpeted a new standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule, he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90 billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not implementing this “common-sense, cost-effective standard”.
A casual listener would have assumed that all these benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths, heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.
The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers respond that those costs are more than justified by even higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the federal apparatus, reckons the “net benefit” of the rules passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill Clinton.
But those calculations have been criticised for resting on assumptions that yield higher benefits and lower costs. One of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary benefits, or “co-benefits”, such as reductions in fine particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury.
Mr Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.
The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-benefits play in assessing Mr Obama's rule-making. Fully two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in fine particles brought about by regulations that were actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-benefits reported in Mr Bush's last year in office in 2008.
If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would surely be more transparent and efficient to target them directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious: a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of such low concentrations.
Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is its heavy reliance on “private benefits”. Economists typically justify regulation when private market participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity, generate costs—such as pollution—that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel and energy-efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such social benefits, but by private benefits like reduced spending on fuel and electricity.
Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit analysis but Ms Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits, their importance has grown dramatically under Mr Obama. Ted Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for 92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency standards for washing machines and refrigerators respectively.
The values placed on such private benefits are highly suspect. If consumers were really better off with more efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer other features more. Mr Obama's OIRA notes that a growing body of research argues that consumers don't always make rational choices; Mr Gayer counters that regulators do not make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.
Under Mr Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr Bush, cites the new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the electricity they use probably came from coal. They also assume less of a “rebound effect”—the tendency of people to drive more when their cars get better mileage—than was the case under Mr Bush.
Mr Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs. At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more horrifying way to die than others.
More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done through the creation of a non-partisan congressional oversight body using the best evidence available to vet regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to see if the original analysis behind them was still valid. Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be less subject to the whims of the people in power.
Link
|
On May 06 2015 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 05 2015 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 13:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 05 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 12:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 05 2015 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 05 2015 12:22 oneofthem wrote:i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpufseems rather wild to claim that the epa would agree to a 6m figure for non-co2 pollutants. there's nothing in that link about the amount from carbon you gotta come up withs omething else Not saying that's the case here, but the EPA does put out benefit estimates that are, to be kind, speculative. The EPA's mandate is human health, finances don't play any role in it IIRC? Whitman vs American Trucking. Finances? I'm talking about their benefit estimates. You just cited some in your previous post. Wrong guy, first time chiming in on this issue While I can accept that benefit estimates are probably off because the criteria for what is actually a benefit is so subjective, it's kind of a no brainer that reducing our reliance on coal is probably good for the environment. It seems on one end the energy companies are using a number that only includes the bare benefits, like x less tons of carbon released times whatever the credit value per ton is, while the EPA does some estimate that includes x number of people don't get ill, their increased productivity, reduced medical costs, etc. The reality is hard to quantify, but going under the EPA's court approved mandate this is all just some finger waggling and semantics more or less. The reality is, far as I understand, as long as the EPA can pull out some scientific evidence that coal is bad (which is easy as making a pb&j), they don't necessarily need to quantify *how* bad it is (financially). whoops, my bad, it's late here. I've read before that the epa will do things like extrapolate from what is known, into what is unknown. So pollution above x level is known to have a negative health effect. EPA lowers pollution below x and assumes the benefits are tangible, even though there is no scientific evidence that the benefit exists. What do you mean extrapolate from known into unknown? The PPM limits and all that jazz probably have some basis in science--- it just becomes hard to quantify the financial benefit, and the fact there's a limit that takes practicality into account (because we ideally would have 0 sulfuric acid being emitted) is already reasonablish to me. I'm not very versed in pollution health effects (was not covered in my immunology class, we went behind schedule), but IIRC there's a sort of logarithmic curve health quality/impacts plotted against pollution concentration, and the EPA tends to set the limit somewhere before the rapid increase. Of course, that's an idealized model with limitations etc. etc. etc. We can only really do so much research about it, the only real way to determine these inflection points (if they even exist) is to just monitor populations lol. Let's say pollutant X the limit is established at 1000. How much "benefit" do you reap at say 500 vs 700 PPM? Both are under the limit, but how much better is 500 vs 700? Again, the criteria are subjective but ultimately irrelevant. The EPA has to regulate human health, cost benefit does not necessarily need to play a role in it. They already meet a standard of reasonableness with "practical" PPM limits. By known to unknown I mean that some substances will be known to cause harm above a certain amount. In toxicology there's a common phrase: 'the dose makes the poison.' To give an example, fluoride is toxic in large doses, but it is also good for your teeth in small doses and so is added to toothpaste and drinking water. As it relates to the EPA, things will be known to be harmful above a known threshold. When writing rules to limit those things below that known threshold, the EPA will assume that the benefits continue. In a case like that it is possible that there will be no benefits from a reduction, yet the benefits will still be added to the cost benefit analysis. The EPA has also changed a lot of how they calculate benefits in the past few years and frankly many of their numbers seem unrealistically high, particularly since most air pollutants have already been substantially reduced. + Show Spoiler + TE had a few articles on this a while back. Here's one: + Show Spoiler +Measuring the impact of regulation
The rule of more
Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial under Barack Obama
IN DECEMBER Barack Obama trumpeted a new standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule, he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma cases. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up to $90 billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr Obama took a swipe at past administrations for not implementing this “common-sense, cost-effective standard”.
A casual listener would have assumed that all these benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths, heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the principal target of the rule: namely, fine particles.
The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem arcane, but matters a lot. When businesses complain that Mr Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers respond that those costs are more than justified by even higher benefits. His Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out of the federal apparatus, reckons the “net benefit” of the rules passed in 2009-10 is greater than in the first two years of the administrations of either George Bush junior or Bill Clinton.
But those calculations have been criticised for resting on assumptions that yield higher benefits and lower costs. One of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary benefits, or “co-benefits”, such as reductions in fine particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury.
Mr Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been included in regulatory cost-benefit analysis. The logic is sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to save money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get more exercise. Both sorts of benefit should be counted.
The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-benefits play in assessing Mr Obama's rule-making. Fully two-thirds of the benefits of economically significant final rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to reductions in fine particles brought about by regulations that were actually aimed at something else, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under George Bush (see chart). That is double the share of co-benefits reported in Mr Bush's last year in office in 2008.
If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it would surely be more transparent and efficient to target them directly. As it happens, federal standards for fine-particle concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely claims additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well below levels the current law considers safe. That is dubious: a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of such low concentrations.
Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is its heavy reliance on “private benefits”. Economists typically justify regulation when private market participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity, generate costs—such as pollution—that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel and energy-efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such social benefits, but by private benefits like reduced spending on fuel and electricity.
Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit analysis but Ms Dudley's data show that, like co-benefits, their importance has grown dramatically under Mr Obama. Ted Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes that private benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and shorter refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in lifetime benefits claimed for last year's new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for 92% and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency standards for washing machines and refrigerators respectively.
The values placed on such private benefits are highly suspect. If consumers were really better off with more efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a prod from government. The fact that they don't means they put little value on money saved in the future, or simply prefer other features more. Mr Obama's OIRA notes that a growing body of research argues that consumers don't always make rational choices; Mr Gayer counters that regulators do not make appropriate use of that research in their calculations.
Under Mr Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance the benefits of rules but also reduce the costs. John Graham of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr Bush, cites the new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that electric cars have no carbon emissions, although the electricity they use probably came from coal. They also assume less of a “rebound effect”—the tendency of people to drive more when their cars get better mileage—than was the case under Mr Bush.
Mr Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the opposite bias: understating benefits and overstating costs. At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had fewer years left to live; it eventually backed down. Mr Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the risk of death by cancer on the ground that it is a more horrifying way to die than others.
More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such controversies. Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done through the creation of a non-partisan congressional oversight body using the best evidence available to vet regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to see if the original analysis behind them was still valid. Rule-making would still require judgment, but it would be less subject to the whims of the people in power.
That's called the Linear No-Threshold model, and while its currently how things work, there's plenty of legit criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold#Controversy
The wiki article only considers radiation exposure, but most of the criticisms hold up regardless of what kind of exposure you're talking about.
|
On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2
This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist.
And he's got personal integrity, so there's that.
|
On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that.
Give it time. He'll get caught accepting money from Russians or paying off investigators or something. It happens to pretty much all of them eventually.
|
WASHINGTON -- In a rebuke to the hawks of his party, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated on Tuesday that he will move forward with a Senate bill on the Iran nuclear agreement by limiting votes on amendments that demand more conditions from the Iranians.
Though no definitive schedule was announced, Republicans left their weekly luncheon suggesting that no further tinkering would be done to the bill. The legislation gives Congress up to 52 days to approve any forthcoming Obama administration request to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on the country’s nuclear program.
"I think the leader will file cloture this afternoon and we’ll have a vote on cloture probably Thursday," said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who described the tone of the lunch as: "It’s time to move on and they’re going to file cloture this afternoon as I understand it."
Speaking to reporters after that luncheon concluded, McConnell would not utter the word "cloture," saying only that he was trying to "move quickly" while considering other, less controversial amendments. If McConnell were to ultimately close off additional amendments, it would help preserve a delicate agreement negotiated between by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.), which passed through the committee by a 19-0 vote. However, the move would also open McConnell to criticism from within his own party, as well as chiding from Democrats.
Source
|
On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that.
Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution.
But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton.
|
Lol yes, Clinton the secretive leftist. Watch out!
|
President Obama says he wants consumers around the world buying more products stamped, "Made in the U.S.A."
That's one reason he's pushing a controversial Asian trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama has chosen a curious setting to make his pitch for the trade agreement this week. He'll be speaking Friday at the Beaverton, Ore., headquarters of the Nike Corporation.
"All of their footwear, all of their clothing is produced in contract factories in places like Vietnam and Indonesia and China," said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a watchdog group that monitors overseas factories.
"Nike is one of the companies that helped perfect the sourcing model that now defines production in footwear and garments and other major light manufacturing sectors. And it's a model based on cheap labor and poor working conditions," Nova said.
Nike, which had $28 billion in sales last year, did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment.
After a burst of bad publicity in the 1990s, Nike tried to clean up factory abuses such as child labor. But the company's most recent report on "sustainable business performance" acknowledges nearly a third of the factories making its products fall short of Nike's own standards. Hours and wages are the most common complaints.
That raises eyebrows of critics who ask why the president would choose such a setting to make the case for his Asia-Pacific trade deal. The administration says the proposed agreement is designed to raise labor standards in the 12 participating countries including Vietnam, the No. 1 source for Nike shoes.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton.
lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress.
Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me
|
On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me
Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender.
Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else.
|
On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else.
There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story.
Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe?
After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who.
If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test".
|
On May 06 2015 11:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else. There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story. Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe? After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who. If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test".
The Republican party has had it's prognostication card pulled a long time ago.
|
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said the nation needs to fix its broken immigration system and that future legislation needs to include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Clinton drew an early distinction with Republicans on immigration during a campaign appearance in Las Vegas saying that not a single Republican “is clearly and consistently” supporting a pathway to citizenship.
Clinton backed President Barack Obama's executive actions to protect undocumented immigrants from deportations — currently stalled due to court appeals. The former New York senator also said she would expand the protections if Congress failed to approve comprehensive immigration reform.
After years of delays on immigration reform in Congress, Hispanics and immigration activists were watching Clinton's statements closely for signs of how she might break a legislative logjam on the issue and whether she would extend Obama's actions to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.
Clinton has backed Obama's unsuccessful pitch for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, including a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, and supported his announcement last year halting deportation for certain immigrants.
Source
|
On May 06 2015 11:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else. There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story. + Show Spoiler +Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe?
After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who.
If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test".
Taxes went up a few times under Obama's terms. Off the top of my head the two big ones were under the ACA and the Bush tax expiry. I don't recall him being a big spender beyond the stimulus though.
|
On May 06 2015 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 11:34 Leporello wrote:On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else. There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story. + Show Spoiler +Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe?
After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who.
If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test". Taxes went up a few times under Obama's terms. Off the top of my head the two big ones were under the ACA and the Bush tax expiry. I don't recall him being a big spender beyond the stimulus though.
Well, he's spent a lot on the military. We're still in Afghanistan, we bombed Libya, we're bombing Syria, we're back in Iraq, and nothing has been done about the F35, i.e. the $1 trillion X-wing that still doesn't work that we don't even need.
|
On May 06 2015 11:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 06 2015 11:34 Leporello wrote:On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else. There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story. + Show Spoiler +Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe?
After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who.
If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test". Taxes went up a few times under Obama's terms. Off the top of my head the two big ones were under the ACA and the Bush tax expiry. I don't recall him being a big spender beyond the stimulus though. Well, he's spent a lot on the military. We're still in Afghanistan, we bombed Libya, we're bombing Syria, we're back in Iraq, and nothing has been done about the F35, i.e. the $1 trillion X-wing that still doesn't work that we don't even need.
Military spending took a hit under the sequester though. It's set to continue to be a shrinking part of the budget going forward as well. Adjusting for inflation, military spend peaked in 2011 (source). I suppose you can argue that was due to Reps taking the House, but it doesn't lend to the 'he's a big spender' argument.
Edit: also, X-wings are cool :3
|
On May 06 2015 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 11:34 Leporello wrote:On May 06 2015 11:11 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 10:52 Chocolate wrote:On May 06 2015 07:54 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 06:31 Yoav wrote:On May 06 2015 05:38 cLutZ wrote:On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street. Not really, they hold virtually the same position on every issue. She has a 10.4 from the national taxpayers union, he has a 9.4, meaning they basically want to spend the same amount of money and raises taxes the same amount. Its purely a difference in rhetorical style. http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/hillary-clinton http://www.ntu.org/state/legislator/bernard-sanders-2 This isn't remotely true. Tax rating is not the sum of all politics. She's way more hawkish than him on basically everything you can be a hawk on. He's also a fucking socialist. And he's got personal integrity, so there's that. Perhaps on war, but he actually only claims to be a socialist (perhaps he is in his heart). His public statements, policy positions, and voting record put him squarely within the modern progressive sphere: No state ownership of capital, increased regulation and control over private industry, and increased taxes/redistribution. But I suppose he does have integrity, such that he admits that he has very leftist positions, rather than hides them, ala Clinton. lol what? Sanders has voted consistently with a socialist ideology on virtually every bill that he has had the chance to vote on. You just don't think he's socialist because there aren't enough socialist bills put to vote in congress. Compare that to Hillary who is pretty hawkish in terms of foreign policy / intelligence gathering and pretty centrist in many aspects (abortion), flipped her stance on gay marriage only when she thought it prudent to do so, has retarded views regarding gender equality, and dodges almost every question I've ever seen her asked on television. Seems like Obama 2.0 to me Obama scores more highly than either on being a high taxer/big spender. Edit. Its irrelevant, all 3 would push through the highest politically feasible amount of increased taxes and increased government control over the private sector, if made president. The foreign policy difference is real (but all presidents seem to change when they get the office), and Hillary/Obama seem to enjoy subsidies to business more than Sanders, but he would spend that same money, just spend it somewhere else. There is so much baselessness here, that I don't to laugh or cry. You're talking about a guy who has already finished a term and a half and hasn't raised taxes once... And he scores higher than -- wait, who gives a shit? He didn't raise taxes. End of story. + Show Spoiler +Who cares what he scores on some imaginary test that seems devoid of even basic fact? If Obama scores as a "high-taxer" on this test, I think it's safe to say the test is as meaningless as can be. If anything the results of such a test should be taken as opposite, maybe?
After that, you make a bunch of assumptions about the future-imagined budgets of Clinton and Sanders. What do you possibly base this on? You can look at Vermont's budgets as a reflection of what Sanders might do as president, I suppose, but Clinton? This is pure assumption and imagination, based on nothing but general rhetoric from... god only knows who.
If you want to talk about the candidates, then all you can do is simply discuss what their ideas are and what they propose to do as President. Based on what they propose, Sanders and Clinton are two very different candidate, with different history and different ideas. I don't know where you make these grand-assumptions about increased taxes and government-control over I-don't-know-what, but try to stick to something that can at least be attributed to things these people have actually done or said, not some "test". Taxes went up a few times under Obama's terms. Off the top of my head the two big ones were under the ACA and the Bush tax expiry. I don't recall him being a big spender beyond the stimulus though.
The reason he is a "big spender" is because the stimulus has been more or less "locked in" with the sequester then preventing further increases in spending. The sequester was kinda forced onto Obama, however, was it not?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
At this point, Warren's the only interesting story in the Democrat party's primaries. Will she decide to run or not? Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley each have their weaknesses. From my inveterate leftist friends, none shows excitement.
|
Hahaha haha haha Obama a big military spender. God that's rich. Someone get me a class of milk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/AQ.PNG)
