|
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 August 04 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements. I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job. With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been.
Nah, practically speaking this just isn't how it works. They still need to get the job done, and most jobs need full-time workers at 40 hours a week. Cutting to 39 hours a week is a hell of a lot easier than cutting down to 29 hours a week. Usually if employers do that then they need to hire another worker anyway to make up for that lost time, which typically isn't worth the cost (depending on how expensive hiring and training is). Besides, the employer can just as easily cut you down to 29 hours either way if he wants to. I don't think you noticed that part.
And having to work 39 hours a week without health insurance usually means that you'll need to pick up another job anyway. At least with 29 hours a week you actually have more time if forced to work two jobs. Essentially it forces employers to have "part-time" employees actually be part time.
I have seen a lot of this kind of thing in my area. So there you go.
|
On August 04 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements. I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job. With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been.
In a situation where employers can cut hours down to 20-29 a week and cause those employees to suffer, we're in a unusual situation where workers have 0 leverage or bargaining power in their employment. That's not a usual scenario, nor a scenario that would be absolved by a law requiring 40 hours instead.
The avenue it takes to discourage employers relies on local businesses looking for workers that larger businesses also want. It forces a company like Wal-Mart to either make 29 hour work more appealing (with higher wages or better working environment), or bite the bullet and offer health insurance. If they don't, a local small business can offer that employee more hours and possibly more pay for less cost to their business.
This doesn't happen when there's a huge saturation of workers in the market, since the large and small business have their pick of employees at the lowest possible cost. That should change in the future though.
|
On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Yeah...
In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work....
For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation. it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall. Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn. So...basically your bias is just really, really bad? You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario. Please read. I said a near (but not completely) overpowering majority. So almost an overpowering majority. A completely overpowering majority would be a majority in the Senate, the House and the president. Right now it's the Senate and the president. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken. That's great, we all really care what you consider a good and bad government system, but the fact of the matter is that the country literally can not afford this healthcare bill The healthcare bill reduces the deficit, but nice try. It also makes healthcare more available, comprehensive and affordable for many people, which is again good for the economy. Sorry, your opposition to the ACA is purely ideological and not one-bit founded on economic data. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
and those that are opposing it are using this to their advantage. Maybe if the economy under Obama hasn't been the worse it's ever been in many years then the whole funding thing would be an non-issue and the bill would pass, too bad that's not the case. The economy would have been in a way worse shape without the measures you and the Republicans oppose, including stimulus bills, some of the bailouts, low interest rates and the rounds of QE. The problem is that we did not go far enough in the direction that was initially chosen, not that the direction was wrong. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP. They ARE trying to mitigate damage, by not funding it. "Reasonable legislators" is a very relativistic term. How about when we were at the debt ceiling, a ceiling that was also imposed by Congress (like Obamacare was voted on by Congress,) but when it came to actually make the cuts that the debt ceiling implied we were supposed to make, the democrats refused to make any cuts saying something along the lines of "no this isn't the time, we can not make cuts while our economy is in such bad "recovery."" A debt ceiling has nothing to do with "implied cuts". If you're talking about the sequester, the entire reason behind the sequester was that the cuts were so bad they would motivate both parties to avoid them. They weren't supposed to actually end up being implemented. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
It's the same situation, just in reverse. Republicans are saying, "that's great that your bill passed but the country can't afford to fund it." That's what they're saying, and it's called lying. Not only is the ACA good for the economy and the budget, repealing it would actually increase the deficit by hundreds of billions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ The only source this article provides for its claim that the ACA will increase the deficit is a 2010 five-pages "study", written notably by the president of a conservative think tank. And even then, its argument is that the ACA would actually reduce deficits, but that Congress will fail to implement & go with some of its deficit-reduction measures. I therefore suppose you have now changed your stance to support the ACA and criticize Congress? edit: and by the way, more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction, and the way the law's been implemented for the years that followed the publication of the 2010 article did not change that. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources 
For the record, he posted the correct sources, as he explicitly pointed out in his next post.
|
On August 05 2013 00:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements. I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job. With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been. In a situation where employers can cut hours down to 20-29 a week and cause those employees to suffer, we're in a unusual situation where workers have 0 leverage or bargaining power in their employment. That's not a usual scenario, nor a scenario that would be absolved by a law requiring 40 hours instead. The avenue it takes to discourage employers relies on local businesses looking for workers that larger businesses also want. It forces a company like Wal-Mart to either make 29 hour work more appealing (with higher wages or better working environment), or bite the bullet and offer health insurance. If they don't, a local small business can offer that employee more hours and possibly more pay for less cost to their business. This doesn't happen when there's a huge saturation of workers in the market, since the large and small business have their pick of employees at the lowest possible cost. That should change in the future though.
You can also have a situation where the added cost of the insurance penalty makes it more attractive for the employer to lower top line revenue with a smaller workforce than accept the cost and allow the bottom line to suffer.
Edit: I think the law is for full time equivalents anyways, though the wording of the regulation hasn't been finalized afaik.
Edit 2: speaking of full vs part time...
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQrnTLQCYAAqwYJ.png:large)
|
Former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is open to running again in 2016, he said Sunday.
"I'm open to looking into the presidential race in 2016," Santorum said on "Meet The Press." "But we've got a little ways. We've got elections in 2014 to focus on."
Santorum is heading to Iowa for three days next week, where he'll attend a GOP fundraiser, a state fair and a leadership summit -- a schedule that's prompted speculation that he's laying the groundwork for another presidential campaign. In 2012, he made stops in each of Iowa's counties, ultimately winning the state by a slim margin.
Early polling suggests that Santorum could face an uphill battle. While the field of potential Republican nominees is fractured, he trails far behind names like Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. In the HuffPost Pollster average, which combines all publicly available polling, Santorum comes in eighth place, with an average of less than 4 percent support.
Source
|
My impression of Rick Santorum: "Waaa don't call me a bigot for my bigotry! Waaaaa!"
I'd love to see him run again. He's always struck me as kind of a wuss, but he keeps putting himself in the spotlight so who knows?
|
On August 05 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 00:24 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements. I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job. With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been. In a situation where employers can cut hours down to 20-29 a week and cause those employees to suffer, we're in a unusual situation where workers have 0 leverage or bargaining power in their employment. That's not a usual scenario, nor a scenario that would be absolved by a law requiring 40 hours instead. The avenue it takes to discourage employers relies on local businesses looking for workers that larger businesses also want. It forces a company like Wal-Mart to either make 29 hour work more appealing (with higher wages or better working environment), or bite the bullet and offer health insurance. If they don't, a local small business can offer that employee more hours and possibly more pay for less cost to their business. This doesn't happen when there's a huge saturation of workers in the market, since the large and small business have their pick of employees at the lowest possible cost. That should change in the future though. You can also have a situation where the added cost of the insurance penalty makes it more attractive for the employer to lower top line revenue with a smaller workforce than accept the cost and allow the bottom line to suffer. Edit: I think the law is for full time equivalents anyways, though the wording of the regulation hasn't been finalized afaik. Edit 2: speaking of full vs part time...
To be fair, there's a third option: don't cut hours, don't offer insurance, and pay the penalty: the penalties are low enough that it's an economically-viable option in many cases (which in my opinion is just another example of what a farce ACA is if it's supposed to be some form of UHC).
|
FANCY FARM, Ky. -- Let’s cut to the chase. The news from Fancy Farm, the big Kentucky political picnic, is that Matt Bevin -- the Tea Party-ish primary challenger to five-term incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell – does not, at first glance, seem to be a kook, a crank or a lightweight.
In fact, in his first major appearance on a political stage, the wealthy Louisville businessman -- a native of New Hampshire who moved to Kentucky in the late 1990s -- was poised, focused, and more than a little savvy about what he's up against when he faces McConnell in the GOP Senate primary next spring.
That means McConnell is now caught in a dangerous crossfire, facing strong challenges from Democratic Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes on one side, and now, plausibly, from Bevin on the other. The former accuses him of doing too little governing; the latter accuses him of doing too much.
At Fancy Farm, Grimes called McConnell “Senator No,” the embodiment of corrupt gridlock of the capital.
“If doctors told Sen. McConnell he had a kidney stone, he’d refuse to pass it,” Grimes said, while McConnell sat close by on stage with a fake smile affixed to his face.
She and other Democrats charged that his 28 years in the Senate achieved few tangible results, aside from making him one of the nation’s most powerful Republicans.
Grimes’ personal attack was expected. Her campaign is about portraying McConnell as the man who stayed too long and got nothing done. And she wants to show that she is tough enough to withstand, and even thrive in, the kind of mudslinging, accusatory campaigns for which McConnell is famous in Kentucky.
Source
|
On August 05 2013 06:16 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 05 2013 00:24 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements. I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job. With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been. In a situation where employers can cut hours down to 20-29 a week and cause those employees to suffer, we're in a unusual situation where workers have 0 leverage or bargaining power in their employment. That's not a usual scenario, nor a scenario that would be absolved by a law requiring 40 hours instead. The avenue it takes to discourage employers relies on local businesses looking for workers that larger businesses also want. It forces a company like Wal-Mart to either make 29 hour work more appealing (with higher wages or better working environment), or bite the bullet and offer health insurance. If they don't, a local small business can offer that employee more hours and possibly more pay for less cost to their business. This doesn't happen when there's a huge saturation of workers in the market, since the large and small business have their pick of employees at the lowest possible cost. That should change in the future though. You can also have a situation where the added cost of the insurance penalty makes it more attractive for the employer to lower top line revenue with a smaller workforce than accept the cost and allow the bottom line to suffer. Edit: I think the law is for full time equivalents anyways, though the wording of the regulation hasn't been finalized afaik. Edit 2: speaking of full vs part time... To be fair, there's a third option: don't cut hours, don't offer insurance, and pay the penalty: the penalties are low enough that it's an economically-viable option in many cases (which in my opinion is just another example of what a farce ACA is if it's supposed to be some form of UHC).
Yep, that's totally an option too. I think I read somewhere that the gov is expected to rake in a few billions less just because of the mandate's delay.
|
An anonymous Republican senator has delayed a vote on legislation that would require police to obtain a warrant before accessing emails and other online messages.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed for a vote on the bill before Congress left for its August recess. He secured unanimous support from Democrats, but at least one Republican objected to the bill, according to a Democratic Senate aide.
Leahy had hoped to fast-track the bill to passage with unanimous support, but the opposition means a vote will be delayed until at least September.
A Leahy aide said the senator will continue to work with Republicans to address their concerns. The Senate could pass the legislation without unanimous support, but it would take up valuable floor time to override a filibuster.
It is unclear which Republican or Republicans objected to the bill, S. 607.
Source
|
On August 04 2013 16:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 14:25 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 06:15 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Please read. I said a near (but not completely) overpowering majority.
So almost an overpowering majority.
A completely overpowering majority would be a majority in the Senate, the House and the president. Right now it's the Senate and the president. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
That's great, we all really care what you consider a good and bad government system, but the fact of the matter is that the country literally can not afford this healthcare bill The healthcare bill reduces the deficit, but nice try. It also makes healthcare more available, comprehensive and affordable for many people, which is again good for the economy. Sorry, your opposition to the ACA is purely ideological and not one-bit founded on economic data. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
and those that are opposing it are using this to their advantage. Maybe if the economy under Obama hasn't been the worse it's ever been in many years then the whole funding thing would be an non-issue and the bill would pass, too bad that's not the case. The economy would have been in a way worse shape without the measures you and the Republicans oppose, including stimulus bills, some of the bailouts, low interest rates and the rounds of QE. The problem is that we did not go far enough in the direction that was initially chosen, not that the direction was wrong. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
They ARE trying to mitigate damage, by not funding it. "Reasonable legislators" is a very relativistic term. How about when we were at the debt ceiling, a ceiling that was also imposed by Congress (like Obamacare was voted on by Congress,) but when it came to actually make the cuts that the debt ceiling implied we were supposed to make, the democrats refused to make any cuts saying something along the lines of "no this isn't the time, we can not make cuts while our economy is in such bad "recovery."" A debt ceiling has nothing to do with "implied cuts". If you're talking about the sequester, the entire reason behind the sequester was that the cuts were so bad they would motivate both parties to avoid them. They weren't supposed to actually end up being implemented. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
It's the same situation, just in reverse. Republicans are saying, "that's great that your bill passed but the country can't afford to fund it." That's what they're saying, and it's called lying. Not only is the ACA good for the economy and the budget, repealing it would actually increase the deficit by hundreds of billions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ The only source this article provides for its claim that the ACA will increase the deficit is a 2010 five-pages "study", written notably by the president of a conservative think tank. And even then, its argument is that the ACA would actually reduce deficits, but that Congress will fail to implement & go with some of its deficit-reduction measures. I therefore suppose you have now changed your stance to support the ACA and criticize Congress? edit: and by the way, more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction, and the way the law's been implemented for the years that followed the publication of the 2010 article did not change that. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources Maybe it would be better if you actually read the links if you are genuinely interested in source material. From the first link, When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.) As the emboldened portion suggests, the CBO stands by it's estimates that the PPACA will reduce deficits, and they recommend one check out their letter to John Boehner for the most recent estimate, which is why I provided that link. From the second link, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.
For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period. So, if I may summarize, the ACA does 3 things: 1. Expands insurance coverage (which will cost almost $1.2 trillion) 2. Cuts funds for medicare (saving about $700 billion) 3. Raises taxes (for a net of about $550 billion) So you Kwizach are saying that the net of these three sets of changes is a reduction in the deficit, which is fair enough. But the people who disagree with this are saying that points number 2 and 3 are likely not to happen. Can you explain why you think that the cuts to medicare and the tax increases will actually go through? Because I have to admit, I can easily see congress overriding these provisions. And if that happens then the US is looking at an extra trillion dollars of debt. Well that's the beauty of the ACA; most of the cuts to Medicare are structural rather than legislative. In short, the CBO estimates that Medicare will literally cost less as the ACA goes through it's increasing stages of implementation. As we can see in states like California and New York, premiums for those who take part in the ACA health insurance exchanges are projected to be cheaper than what many already pay. Similarly, some of the inefficiencies of Medicare can be reduced as the health insurance exchanges take over some of the low income insurance market, effectively letting the government trim the program without having to do so with further legislation.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Sorry I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've been reading a lot about this in the last day or two and it's pretty hard to follow. And pretty much everyone who's writing about it seems to have a strong partisan bias.
So the "legislative" cuts to Medicare as I understand them are:
1. Cutting payments to "Medicare advantage"
2. Cutting payments to hospitals and other health care providers who treat Medicare patients
You are talking about "structural" savings, but none of the articles I've found talk about this as a major sources of savings.
The issue the critics have with the "legislative" changes say that these changes are not feasible and worry that they will be repealed by congress before they actually take effect. Same with the extra taxes. So I'm just curious why you don't worry about this exact thing happening?
I suspect that most democrat partisans really believe that the act is worth it even though it probably will end up increasing the deficit. But none of them are willing to candidly argue that position.
|
On August 06 2013 00:09 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:53 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 14:25 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 06:15 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI.
[quote]
The healthcare bill reduces the deficit, but nice try. It also makes healthcare more available, comprehensive and affordable for many people, which is again good for the economy. Sorry, your opposition to the ACA is purely ideological and not one-bit founded on economic data.
[quote]
The economy would have been in a way worse shape without the measures you and the Republicans oppose, including stimulus bills, some of the bailouts, low interest rates and the rounds of QE. The problem is that we did not go far enough in the direction that was initially chosen, not that the direction was wrong.
[quote]
A debt ceiling has nothing to do with "implied cuts". If you're talking about the sequester, the entire reason behind the sequester was that the cuts were so bad they would motivate both parties to avoid them. They weren't supposed to actually end up being implemented.
[quote]
That's what they're saying, and it's called lying. Not only is the ACA good for the economy and the budget, repealing it would actually increase the deficit by hundreds of billions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ The only source this article provides for its claim that the ACA will increase the deficit is a 2010 five-pages "study", written notably by the president of a conservative think tank. And even then, its argument is that the ACA would actually reduce deficits, but that Congress will fail to implement & go with some of its deficit-reduction measures. I therefore suppose you have now changed your stance to support the ACA and criticize Congress? edit: and by the way, more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction, and the way the law's been implemented for the years that followed the publication of the 2010 article did not change that. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources Maybe it would be better if you actually read the links if you are genuinely interested in source material. From the first link, When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.) As the emboldened portion suggests, the CBO stands by it's estimates that the PPACA will reduce deficits, and they recommend one check out their letter to John Boehner for the most recent estimate, which is why I provided that link. From the second link, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.
For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period. So, if I may summarize, the ACA does 3 things: 1. Expands insurance coverage (which will cost almost $1.2 trillion) 2. Cuts funds for medicare (saving about $700 billion) 3. Raises taxes (for a net of about $550 billion) So you Kwizach are saying that the net of these three sets of changes is a reduction in the deficit, which is fair enough. But the people who disagree with this are saying that points number 2 and 3 are likely not to happen. Can you explain why you think that the cuts to medicare and the tax increases will actually go through? Because I have to admit, I can easily see congress overriding these provisions. And if that happens then the US is looking at an extra trillion dollars of debt. Well that's the beauty of the ACA; most of the cuts to Medicare are structural rather than legislative. In short, the CBO estimates that Medicare will literally cost less as the ACA goes through it's increasing stages of implementation. As we can see in states like California and New York, premiums for those who take part in the ACA health insurance exchanges are projected to be cheaper than what many already pay. Similarly, some of the inefficiencies of Medicare can be reduced as the health insurance exchanges take over some of the low income insurance market, effectively letting the government trim the program without having to do so with further legislation. Can you explain what you mean by this? Sorry I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've been reading a lot about this in the last day or two and it's pretty hard to follow. And pretty much everyone who's writing about it seems to have a strong partisan bias. So the "legislative" cuts to Medicare as I understand them are: 1. Cutting payments to "Medicare advantage" 2. Cutting payments to hospitals and other health care providers who treat Medicare patients You are talking about "structural" savings, but none of the articles I've found talk about this as a major sources of savings. The issue the critics have with the "legislative" changes say that these changes are not feasible and worry that they will be repealed by congress before they actually take effect. Same with the extra taxes. So I'm just curious why you don't worry about this exact thing happening? I suspect that most democrat partisans really believe that the act is worth it even though it probably will end up increasing the deficit. But none of them are willing to candidly argue that position.
1. Due to the increased number if young/healthy people in the pool of insured, Medicare Advantage doesn't need to be as highly subsidized.
2. Medicare is the single largest buyer of healthcare. They essentially set the prices, and are setting them lower.
The reason these 2 things are possible come down to the expanded healthcare coverage of the entire population. Hospitals and insurance providers should see a noticeable increase in customers and payments, so reducing the amount of "welfare" they get from the federal government is easier to swallow.
The reason many people don't think these actions will be repealed is due to the nature of Congress and the Presidency right now. The most important time for implementation of this law is within the next 3 years, all of which will have Obama in the White House. Obama will not, under any reasonable circumstances, gut his own legacy. Further, Congress can't even pass stuff it's already agreed on passing, much less a controversial gutting of the PPACA.
|
On August 05 2013 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is open to running again in 2016, he said Sunday.
"I'm open to looking into the presidential race in 2016," Santorum said on "Meet The Press." "But we've got a little ways. We've got elections in 2014 to focus on."
Santorum is heading to Iowa for three days next week, where he'll attend a GOP fundraiser, a state fair and a leadership summit -- a schedule that's prompted speculation that he's laying the groundwork for another presidential campaign. In 2012, he made stops in each of Iowa's counties, ultimately winning the state by a slim margin.
Early polling suggests that Santorum could face an uphill battle. While the field of potential Republican nominees is fractured, he trails far behind names like Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. In the HuffPost Pollster average, which combines all publicly available polling, Santorum comes in eighth place, with an average of less than 4 percent support. Source
Hilary guaranteed victory if this ends up true and not just a ploy to get money out of Fox News doing interviews etc.
Rick Santorum was definitely the Republican Party's version of the green party. Bless his soul.
|
An Eastern Washington legislator, speaking at a “Self-Reliance Rally” of Tea Party activists and survivalists, predicted last weekend that the United States economy is going to collapse and told activists to stock up on ammunition and stay in top physical condition for when that happens.
“We need to prepare for the inevitable collapse that is going to happen: You know it’s going to happen. That’s right, I am a politician and I am standing up here and saying that,” said state Rep. Matt Shea, a Republican from Spokane Valley. The lawmaker’s remarks were reported in the Coeur D’Alene Press.
Source
The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream.
Edit: He also tried to outlaw American currency and demanded that they resort to gold and silver. lol
|
No they are not normalising it, this guy is in the most far right wing of republicans.
This is no senator or even a congresman,its a nobody even in the republican party.
You are verry biased in presenting this as "The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream"
Annyway his message is quiet alarming, what if he is right?
The collapse of the american economy is predicted every year by manny conspiracy believers and doomdenkers but lately it seems to pop up more frequent,even though the economy slowly improves.
|
Found this ironic:
Huh? Red states could beat blues in Obamacare enrollment
Some states may be "blue" in more ways than one after Obamacare really kicks in next year.
A major deal on the Affordable Care Act could lead to an ironic outcome: more residents in red states than in blue enrolling in Obamacare health insurance exchanges.
That's because the federal government, which is running health exchanges in nearly all the red states, is moving to allow several for-profit online insurance markets to sign up subsidy-eligible people in the exchanges' insurance plans.
But a CNBC.com survey shows that nearly all the 14 states (and District of Columbia) running their own exchanges have rejected partnering with for-profit Web markets to augment their enrollments. Those states, which mostly voted for President Barack Obama, represent about 40 percent of U.S. population, and include New York and California. ...
Link
|
I think we'll have to wait and see. That article's evidence that exchange-less states will see increased enrollments seems to deal exclusively in the opinions of those employed by the e-insurance sites or their legal counsel.
"I think Web brokers will assist in facilitating enrollment, hands down, so states who do not partner with Web brokers will, I think, have less enrollment," said Christopher Condeluci, an employee benefits lawyer with the firm of Venable.
The 36 states that aren't setting up their own exchanges—ironically—may end up being the most efficient operations in terms of exchange enrollment," said Gary Lauer, CEO of eHealth, operator of eHealthInsurance.com, which signed one of the deals with the federal government.
Doesn't sound too conclusive yet 
|
On August 06 2013 03:08 Rassy wrote:
No they are not normalising it, this guy is in the most far right wing of republicans.
This is no senator or even a congresman,its a nobody even in the republican party.
You are verry biased in presenting this as "The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream"
Annyway his message is quiet alarming, what if he is right?
The collapse of the american economy is predicted every year by manny conspiracy believers and doomdenkers but lately it seems to pop up more frequent,even though the economy slowly improves.
Ted Cruz, Steve King, in my state we have EW Jackson (not to mention our whacked out state legislature). Rand Paul is a hopeful for 2016 and is also a neo-confederate. Rick Perry is far to the right than W ever was. And that's off the top of my head. This guy is actually a top Republican in Washington State legislature. I don't know why you think only federal "matters."
And I think it's hilarious how you end your post going off the deep end and taking conspiracy theories seriously. And the rise in frequency is important because of how extreme one end of the politics is becoming. They are very much giving more voice to the extreme elements of their party. Of course people are going to freak out more.
|
On August 06 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:I think we'll have to wait and see. That article's evidence that exchange-less states will see increased enrollments seems to deal exclusively in the opinions of those employed by the e-insurance sites or their legal counsel. Show nested quote +"I think Web brokers will assist in facilitating enrollment, hands down, so states who do not partner with Web brokers will, I think, have less enrollment," said Christopher Condeluci, an employee benefits lawyer with the firm of Venable.
The 36 states that aren't setting up their own exchanges—ironically—may end up being the most efficient operations in terms of exchange enrollment," said Gary Lauer, CEO of eHealth, operator of eHealthInsurance.com, which signed one of the deals with the federal government. Doesn't sound too conclusive yet
True, though there isn't much about Obamacare that is conclusive at this point.
Another speculative tidbit:
A lot of unions are going to end up hating Obamacare
In 2018, the Affordable Care Act will begin levying a tax on unusually expensive health-care plans. The tax will be 40 percent on each premium dollar over $10,200 for individual plans and $27,500 for family plans. ...
the Affordable Care Act only taxes the really expensive health plans, and even then, it only taxes part of them. But there’s a bit of a trick here: The tax grows really quickly, so with each year that goes by, more and more health plans are exposed to it — at least unless they’re able to hold down costs.
Link
Edit: Should have mentioned this part too:
That sets up one of the recurring problems in health-care policy, which is that the more you do to control costs, the more people will hate you. Insurers found this out in the 1990s, when HMOs managed to save a lot of money without doing any measurable harm to care, but the American people loathed them for it. Various provisions in the Affordable Care Act — or any serious cost-control effort — will end up proving it again.
|
WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
Source
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — It will be a few years before energy is generated by any offshore wind farm in the United States, but efforts to get more of the nation's energy from such sources took a major step forward last week when the federal government for the first time auctioned off leases for wind energy on the outer continental shelf.
Providence-based Deepwater Wind was the provisional winner of the two leases for an area that starts around 10 miles off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and stretches between and to the south of Block Island and Martha's Vineyard. The company bid $3.8 million for the two leases combined, beating out two other bidders in the auction held Wednesday by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a division of the U.S. Department of Interior.
Tommy Beaudreau, director of the bureau, called it a historic moment in the future of clean energy in the country and said it would help in meeting President Barack Obama's goal of increasing the amount of clean energy generated on public lands. The Department of Energy has estimated the area could support enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes.
There are no offshore wind farms in the U.S., though several are being developed, including Cape Wind off Cape Cod and a small 5-turbine project off Block Island, being developed by Deepwater. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management also plans to auction off leases for several other offshore wind development areas, including Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia, where an auction will be held next month.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
