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 January 23 2016 02:03 ticklishmusic wrote: did you call him out for that sweet reddit karma? (jokes his supporters would probably just downvote you)
this may be me being dumb, but isn't the personal deduction like 4k and the standard deduction like 6.3? where's the 20K coming from (because i'd like to be able to claim it... )
Saver's Credit. It's actually a little higher than that too. Basically if you can get your AGI under $18k you qualify for a 50% non-refundable tax credit on up to $2000 of retirement savings. At that income the credit is actually more than enough to wipe out the entire tax obligation getting you to 0. If you put the money into a ROTH IRA you can withdraw the contribution (but not any growth) tax free in the future. So you open a ROTH, put the money into something stable, get the credit, take the money back out. Or leave it there, which is of course what they hope you'll do. At $20k you'll owe around $970 in Federal taxes. If you put $2k into an IRA then the gov gives you back $970 meaning that the $2k in the IRA only cost you $1k. And that's a great deal and an excellent way to start building a retirement account.
Not really a trick, they want you to do it. Similar things are available for educational expenses too.
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
Yes. I just like to point out why the hell they were changing water sources in the first place, and what I think the first option that should have been tried (aka the easiest one).
On January 23 2016 02:03 ticklishmusic wrote: did you call him out for that sweet reddit karma? (jokes his supporters would probably just downvote you)
this may be me being dumb, but isn't the personal deduction like 4k and the standard deduction like 6.3? where's the 20K coming from (because i'd like to be able to claim it... )
Saver's Credit. It's actually a little higher than that too. Basically if you can get your AGI under $18k you qualify for a 50% non-refundable tax credit on up to $2000 of retirement savings. At that income the credit is actually more than enough to wipe out the entire tax obligation getting you to 0. If you put the money into a ROTH IRA you can withdraw the contribution (but not any growth) tax free in the future. So you open a ROTH, put the money into something stable, get the credit, take the money back out. Or leave it there, which is of course what they hope you'll do. At $20k you'll owe around $970 in Federal taxes. If you put $2k into an IRA then the gov gives you back $970 meaning that the $2k in the IRA only cost you $1k. And that's a great deal and an excellent way to start building a retirement account.
Not really a trick, they want you to do it. Similar things are available for educational expenses too.
Very neat. I can definitely use this for the 2015 tax year b/c I started work in June, so half a year's salary minus deductions and retirement contributions gets me to $18K pretty easily. Now to find something stable to park my Roth IRA...
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
Do you have a source for that part? Not the $100 part but the part about the cost being presented with a reason why they needed it then it being rejected? I just find it hard to believe. I could see it getting rejected as a part of a bigger budget but not as a separate line item with a reason why it was needed.
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
Do you have a source for that part? Not the $100 part but the part about the cost being presented with a reason why they needed it then it being rejected? I just find it hard to believe. I could see it getting rejected as a part of a bigger budget but not as a separate line item with a reason why it was needed.
No, I don't have a source and I don't think it went down comic book villain style where he said "fuck the kids, get money". It was just one of what was most likely a host of cuts to essential services that were made without due consideration of the consequences.
I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
You guys have a 15 month electoral cycle and we told GH not to keep updating us on Bernie's bowel movements.
On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote: Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences?
edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from.
edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with.
Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components. 1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates. 2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices. 3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready. 4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
My understanding was that the city manager Snyder brought in was told the anti-corrosive agent that needed to be added to the new water source (the Flint river) would cost $100/day. They decided that that was too much to spend so instead they pumped the corrosive water through lead pipes which promptly corroded the pipes.
There was nothing wrong with the water source, or the pipes, or the infrastructure, or the local politics. A Snyder appointee simply decided that $36,500 a year for lead-free water was too much. I don't think he did this while laughing maniacally at the thought of the brain damaged children, it was just an overly zealous bureaucratic cost cutter with no idea what the costs he was cutting actually did. Nothing to do with the Democratic politicians though.
Do you have a source for that part? Not the $100 part but the part about the cost being presented with a reason why they needed it then it being rejected? I just find it hard to believe. I could see it getting rejected as a part of a bigger budget but not as a separate line item with a reason why it was needed.
No, I don't have a source and I don't think it went down comic book villain style where he said "fuck the kids, get money". It was just one of what was most likely a host of cuts to essential services that were made without due consideration of the consequences.
OK I was just curious. That's the toughest thing about issues like these is that they get politicized (not by you specifically) and then all of a sudden people get turned into super villains. Working at a big company I could totally see how something like this could happen and then things becoming delayed by people trying to cover there ass.
I figured someone or a group of people just made a mistake but didn't own up to it. If that would have happened in the beginning maybe lesse people in Flint would have suffered. That's truly the sad part.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
You guys have a 15 month electoral cycle and we told GH not to keep updating us on Bernie's bowel movements.
Pretty much. Big thinkers in the conservative wing of the GOP saw Trumps unfavorables and decided he can’t win the general election. Nothing really shocking, should have happened earlier.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
As someone who's conservative, what's your opinion on that National Review piece?
It's obviously clear to everyone that Trump has been a thorn in the GOP's side on the best of days. Something like this piece seems like an establishment wedge that will only serve to further split the "people" and the establishment. Do you think this is the beginning of a party separation?
And as you've mentioned, it's similar in that regard to the left side of the race as well. Man, I would love if we didn't have just two parties.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
You guys have a 15 month electoral cycle and we told GH not to keep updating us on Bernie's bowel movements.
Pretty much. Big thinkers in the conservative wing of the GOP saw Trumps unfavorables and decided he can’t win the general election. Nothing really shocking, should have happened earlier.
Last night I saw this:
And its entirely true. I know a lot of liberals like to think the Republicans courted this Trump phenomenon with the fiery rhetoric, but it was just as, if not more, brought on by their incompetence and lack of desire to take a stand.
Often you will hear about the TSA as "security theater", Republican establishment figures have spent the last 6 years involved in a similar "conservative failure theater" where they engage in moves that are intentionally crafted to do nothing, yet to try and give them the appearance of doing something. No one bought it, and those that did buy it said, "Wait, why is you professing your own incompetence making me want to vote for you?"
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
As someone who's conservative, what's your opinion on that National Review piece?
It's obviously clear to everyone that Trump has been a thorn in the GOP's side on the best of days. Something like this piece seems like an establishment wedge that will only serve to further split the "people" and the establishment. Do you think this is the beginning of a party separation?
And as you've mentioned, it's similar in that regard to the left side of the race as well. Man, I would love if we didn't have just two parties.
I'll be first to say that the National Review piece is generally accurate in its characterizations of Trump and in pointing out that he's not a conservative (I also think that the piece is hypocritical, but that's another story). But here's the point: this is the kind of piece that truly puts "conservatism" on trial in this election. If Trump wins the nomination despite this kind of attack (and I'm thinking that he will), what does that say of the status of "conservatism" within the republican party? Would it not be a wholesale rejection of conservatism as presently defined? I think it would be. There are some huge ramifications here for what is going to happen to the republican party.
And many of the same forces are at work in the democrat party, which is fueling Bernie's rise, though to a lesser degree. It's been a long time since the US has had such a potentially consequential election year.
But the difference between Trump and traditional conservatives seems to be a lot bigger than between Bernie and the Democrat establishment. Haven't people like Warren and Bernie been around for a long time?
At home, Julián Castro’s been spending more time reading and watching television in Spanish, trying to get his speaking skills up to speed.
On the job as Housing and Urban Development secretary, he’s been carefully working the levers in Washington, with coaching from Bill Clinton and a twin brother who’s a popular and up-and-coming congressman himself.
Starting Saturday, he’ll be out on the trail for Hillary Clinton in in Nevada, Iowa and Maine.
He’s plotted his rise carefully, studying and strategizing with a clear goal in sight. But if Clinton picks him to be her running mate, it’ll be more about perfectly fitting his party’s moment and the nearly non-existent Democratic bench than about his 18 months as a HUD secretary who hasn’t left a deep mark at his agency, the White House or the housing world.
Castro’s got a made-for-campaign commercials biography, and an undeniable savvy that’s helped him spin a job as a part-time mayor of San Antonio into an unusually successful 2012 Democratic convention keynote and then the answer to the second term Obama White House’s own search for more diversity in the Cabinet, without having to wait until he could win statewide in Texas.
Since he got to Washington in 2014, Castro’s invested in building relationships with key members of Congress, paying close attention to the people who have control of HUD budgets and who might make good political connections to have down the line. He’s used the allure of getting to hang out with a possible future vice president to make fans out of housing industry leaders who nonetheless have trouble citing anything specific they like about his work, streamlined a famously dysfunctional bureaucracy and walked the hallways to improve employee satisfaction so much that several HUD employees who rolled their eyes at his appointment now say he was a needed change.
Along the way, Castro’s inner circle of aides and advisers have come to see Clinton’s running mate decision as a pretty simple math problem: it’ll be a white man, a black man or a brown man, they figure.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
What's your take on it? Are we getting Trump as nominee? Will the RNC appoint Bush in complete defiance of the entire primary? Trump is looking inevitable. If Rubio doesn't score at least 25% vote in Iowa or NH, I think he may be out. He needs to at least show potential, not continue to be in the background.
EPT
)
