|
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 April 29 2016 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 29 2016 06:25 WhiteDog wrote:On April 29 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote: I strongly suspect that many (if not most) democrats will be pleasantly surprised with a President Trump. You are still way too naive, it's never about what you do, it's about how you present it. Trump is not young enough, not friendly enough, not feminine enough, he doesn't say "I'm a feminist", a la Justin Trudeau, enough. The actual policies ? Yeah who cares ... Pfff, everyone is gonna feel like a winner with a President Trump. If he is elected, will you share with us a picture of you with a Trump T-shirt dancing in the street ? I'll consider it. =)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
trump economics would simply push forward the inequality stuff to new heights. protectionism may make some people poorer, it definitely doesn't make the average american worker richer. i see a dynamic where the major industrial players get entrenched.
if he does raise tariffs a bunch, in the president's power to do so, there will be a big shock. congress would not pass the fiscal stimulus to offset it. poor people get really fucked. some industrialists are happy. i suppose some of the leftist special snowflakes are really happy to see global kapitalism getting some degree of pushback but these dudes are the most sheltered and detached people around.
|
Well, since noone said the hastert case was covered:
"Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Wednesday was sentenced to 15 months in prison and ordered to pay $250,000 to a victims' fund in a hush money case that revealed he was being accused of sexually abusing young boys as a teacher in Illinois."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/politics/dennis-hastert-sentencing/index.html
too bad the statute of limitations had expired so they could only get him for the hush money shenanigans. Good to see at least the formerly powerful getting taken down for their crimes.
|
|
|
Brad Deutsch, the attorney who authored the letter last week charging the Hillary Clinton campaign’s joint fundraising committee with dubious dealings that appear to violate Federal election law, isn’t just any ole lawyer. Prior to joining the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer in July 2014, Deutsch worked for more than a decade at the government’s top watchdog over Federal campaign financing – the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Deutsch, now lead counsel to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign for President, would seem to be well qualified in defining what is and is not legal under Federal election law. From 2006 to 2014, Deutsch was Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Steven T. Walther at the FEC. Prior to that, he served as Assistant General Counsel at the FEC from 2004 to 2006 where he supervised a team of Federal election law attorneys.
The joint fundraising committee set up by the Clinton campaign is called the Hillary Victory Fund. Its Treasurer, Elizabeth Jones, doubles as the Chief Operating Officer for Hillary Clinton’s main campaign fund, Hillary for America. The joint committee was supposed to financially benefit the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and 32 state committees that agreed to come on board. The concept, in theory, is to raise joint funds to benefit the broader Democratic party and congressional candidates running for office. But by ramping up the joint fundraising committee before the primary races have concluded, before Hillary is even the party’s nominee, and with her own people in charge of the joint committee, it has created the growing perception that this so-called joint effort is really just a ham-fisted appendage of a political machine that wants to skip the quaintness of primary voting and let big donors install the Democratic party’s candidate.
The arrogance of this attitude has outraged Bernie Sanders’ supporters and piqued curiosity about what’s really going on inside the Hillary Victory Fund. The picture hasn’t been pretty to date and, unfortunately, it is adding to the negative public perception that Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted.
Under Federal election law, all that the Hillary for America primary campaign committee can accept from an individual donor is a maximum of $2700 for the primary election and an additional $2700 for the general election. But by setting up the Hillary Victory Fund as a joint committee between the DNC, 32 state party committees and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the super wealthy are able to contribute a whopping $712,200, with much of that finding its way into Hillary’s main campaign fund, Hillary for America.
Here’s the specific math. In addition to the $2700 an individual can contribute to a Federal candidate’s primary campaign, a donor can also contribute up to $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties. With 32 state parties signing on to the Hillary Victory Fund, that’s $320,000 plus $33,400 for the DNC for a total of $353,400. If that individual has not previously given to Hillary Clinton, you can add another $2700 for a total of $356,100. A single check can be written to the joint fundraising committee for that stunning amount.
But it gets a lot worse in terms of the 99 percent having a voice in politics in America. Because the first $356,100 is counted toward the primary phase of the election, the same amount can be donated again by the same individual for the general election once the calendar turned to 2016, the year of the general election, allowing Wall Street billionaires and hedge fund moguls the ability to pony up a total of $712,200 by writing a mere two checks to the Hillary Victory Fund. (The same billionaires and hedge fund moguls are writing out checks for millions more to Priorities USA, a Super PAC that is supporting Hillary.)
So if all of this stinks to high heaven but is legal, why is Brad Deutsch, the campaign finance legal eagle crying foul. According to Deutsch, the Hillary campaign is double-dipping. Deutsch writes in the letter:
“…these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising, both of which appear to benefit only HFA by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA, rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees…at best, the joint fundraising committee’s spending on direct mail and online advertising appears to represent an impermissible in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state party committees to HFA. At worst, using funds received from large-dollar donors who have already contributed the $2,700 maximum to HFA may represent an excessive contribution to HFA from these individuals.” http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/are-hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc-skirting-election-law/
I'm pretty sure it's the same kind of thing with every possible candidate tho, not linking that to belittle Hillary. Just thought the piece was interesting in regards to campaign finance.
|
On April 29 2016 06:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 06:41 oBlade wrote:On April 29 2016 06:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 29 2016 06:25 WhiteDog wrote:On April 29 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote: I strongly suspect that many (if not most) democrats will be pleasantly surprised with a President Trump. You are still way too naive, it's never about what you do, it's about how you present it. Trump is not young enough, not friendly enough, not feminine enough, he doesn't say "I'm a feminist", a la Justin Trudeau, enough. The actual policies ? Yeah who cares ... I mean, the actual policies Trump has posted on his own site are pretty incoherent messes that contradict a lot of what he's said on the trail (and he completely forgot about some of them based on a couple of debate performances). So it's hard to judge him by those. What would be some examples of that? 4 abortion positions in 4 days. He committed to 20-30k ground troops during a debate to fight ISIS, now he backs isolationism or a secret strategy (maybe, who knows). He claims he will raise taxes on the rich, but his tax plan is the largest upper class tax cut ever put to paper. Can you even write down a single version of his Muslim policy? I think it is a registry and an entry ban right now, but it moves all over the place. And to top it all off, his advisers have repeatedly told Republican insiders that Trump is playing a role and his actual positions are subject to negotiation.
Don't forget that before the Paris attacks he was advocating letting Muslim refugees into the country on O'Reilly and saying that Obama's failure to do so quickly was a mistake.
|
On April 29 2016 07:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Brad Deutsch, the attorney who authored the letter last week charging the Hillary Clinton campaign’s joint fundraising committee with dubious dealings that appear to violate Federal election law, isn’t just any ole lawyer. Prior to joining the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer in July 2014, Deutsch worked for more than a decade at the government’s top watchdog over Federal campaign financing – the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Deutsch, now lead counsel to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign for President, would seem to be well qualified in defining what is and is not legal under Federal election law. From 2006 to 2014, Deutsch was Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Steven T. Walther at the FEC. Prior to that, he served as Assistant General Counsel at the FEC from 2004 to 2006 where he supervised a team of Federal election law attorneys.
The joint fundraising committee set up by the Clinton campaign is called the Hillary Victory Fund. Its Treasurer, Elizabeth Jones, doubles as the Chief Operating Officer for Hillary Clinton’s main campaign fund, Hillary for America. The joint committee was supposed to financially benefit the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and 32 state committees that agreed to come on board. The concept, in theory, is to raise joint funds to benefit the broader Democratic party and congressional candidates running for office. But by ramping up the joint fundraising committee before the primary races have concluded, before Hillary is even the party’s nominee, and with her own people in charge of the joint committee, it has created the growing perception that this so-called joint effort is really just a ham-fisted appendage of a political machine that wants to skip the quaintness of primary voting and let big donors install the Democratic party’s candidate.
The arrogance of this attitude has outraged Bernie Sanders’ supporters and piqued curiosity about what’s really going on inside the Hillary Victory Fund. The picture hasn’t been pretty to date and, unfortunately, it is adding to the negative public perception that Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted.
Under Federal election law, all that the Hillary for America primary campaign committee can accept from an individual donor is a maximum of $2700 for the primary election and an additional $2700 for the general election. But by setting up the Hillary Victory Fund as a joint committee between the DNC, 32 state party committees and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the super wealthy are able to contribute a whopping $712,200, with much of that finding its way into Hillary’s main campaign fund, Hillary for America.
Here’s the specific math. In addition to the $2700 an individual can contribute to a Federal candidate’s primary campaign, a donor can also contribute up to $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties. With 32 state parties signing on to the Hillary Victory Fund, that’s $320,000 plus $33,400 for the DNC for a total of $353,400. If that individual has not previously given to Hillary Clinton, you can add another $2700 for a total of $356,100. A single check can be written to the joint fundraising committee for that stunning amount.
But it gets a lot worse in terms of the 99 percent having a voice in politics in America. Because the first $356,100 is counted toward the primary phase of the election, the same amount can be donated again by the same individual for the general election once the calendar turned to 2016, the year of the general election, allowing Wall Street billionaires and hedge fund moguls the ability to pony up a total of $712,200 by writing a mere two checks to the Hillary Victory Fund. (The same billionaires and hedge fund moguls are writing out checks for millions more to Priorities USA, a Super PAC that is supporting Hillary.)
So if all of this stinks to high heaven but is legal, why is Brad Deutsch, the campaign finance legal eagle crying foul. According to Deutsch, the Hillary campaign is double-dipping. Deutsch writes in the letter:
“…these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising, both of which appear to benefit only HFA by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA, rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees…at best, the joint fundraising committee’s spending on direct mail and online advertising appears to represent an impermissible in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state party committees to HFA. At worst, using funds received from large-dollar donors who have already contributed the $2,700 maximum to HFA may represent an excessive contribution to HFA from these individuals.” http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/are-hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc-skirting-election-law/I'm pretty sure it's the same kind of thing with every possible candidate tho, not linking that to belittle Hillary. Just thought the piece was interesting in regards to campaign finance.
There ya have it, wasn't just the ramblings of a mad man. I think if other candidates were doing it, it's something Democrats would speak out against normally. I don't think anyone else is, or has, done this either. I'd be happy to find out otherwise though.
|
WASHINGTON — If you were hoping Republicans had fresh new solutions for health care reform up their sleeves, you might find the recent hints from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) a bit disappointing.
After six years of the GOP failing to come up with a comprehensive alternative to the Affordable Care Act, what Ryan outlined during an appearance at Georgetown University on Wednesday was essentially another stab at a decades-old idea that’s never really worked — an idea that would involve allowing health insurance companies to resume charging sick people higher rates than healthy people.
The cornerstone of Ryan’s approach is so-called high-risk pools, a form of health insurance designed for people with the most serious health conditions and highest costs, who were mostly locked out of the regular private market before the Affordable Care Act required insurers to accept all applicants.
If the concept sounds familiar, it’s because high-risk pools have existed since 1976, and are a go-to policy proposal for Republicans who don’t want to be accused of not caring about people with pre-existing conditions.
High-risk pools have been part of countless conservative reform platforms, including a recent plan from the House Republican Study Committee and a not-so-recent one from the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
They were even included in a 2009 House Republican bill that was supposed to be the GOP alternative to the ACA, but that the Congressional Budget Office said would only reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 3 million people over a decade (in contrast to Obamacare, which has reduced the uninsured by 20 million since 2013).
“We can and should and must fix that,” Ryan said in response to a question from a student who said his family had benefited from Obamacare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
“The smarter way, in my opinion, is that we as a society make a decision at the government level that we will buck up and subsidize those people with pre-existing conditions.” Ryan said. Reuters first reported Ryan’s remarks.
The problem is, high-risk pools — which existed in 35 states before the Affordable Care Act made them virtually obsolete — always failed to achieve their goal of providing a true insurer of last resort to those who needed it.
Source
|
I'll wait until the summer reveal of his full proposal, but I don't expect anything terribly sound and feasible. And I agree with the articles comment that it's very unlikely the government would provide the funds necessary to subsidize a high-risk pool to the point where the people could afford it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
get some cost controlled public hospital system to take on that population. would do wonders for cost. increase public funded treatment research to fill the supposed gap in research
|
Not seeing how government funded high risk pools or government funded hospitals are more "free market" than subsidies to buy private insurance through an federally funded exchange. ACA is the free market answer to maximal coverage.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
point is the market is pretty not working in healthcare, both as an abstract matter for the high risk pool and in practice with all the entrenched monopolies etc.
|
I lean towards, and I think the mainstream section of the Democratic party leans towards (Hillary+Schumer+Pelosi), gradual Medicare/Medicaid expansion; with some kind of buy in at the higher ages.
|
On April 29 2016 09:42 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Not seeing how government funded high risk pools or government funded hospitals are more "free market" than subsidies to buy private insurance through an federally funded exchange. ACA is the free market answer to maximal coverage. ACA isn't really free market; being forced to sell to people who you don't want to sell to isn't free market. It's more of a hack solution, it doesn't work that well; it's basically a hidden tax system. It'd make more sense to just make it a non-hidden tax.
|
Black voters think most Americans simply do not care about urban gun violence, according to a new phone survey by a prominent Democratic polling firm. But for them, it’s an crucial issue – and a more serious one than police misconduct.
In a February poll, 80% of the registered black voters surveyed described gun violence in communities of color as an “extremely serious” problem, compared with only 50% who called police misconduct an “extremely serious” problem, and 69% who called the incarceration rate an “extremely serious” problem.
The majority of the 600 registered black voters surveyed said they believed that most police officers are professionals who do the right thing, and that only a few “bad apple” officers discriminate based on race. But nearly one in four said they believed that racism is a pervasive problem in policing, and that “most police officers in America discriminate and profile on the basis of race”.
The poll found that registered Latino voters viewed both gun violence and police misconduct as much less serious problems than African American voters, with only half judging gun violence as a “extremely serious” problem, 24% seeing police misconduct as an “extremely serious” problem, and 15% believing that “most police officers in America discriminate and profile on the basis of race.” Only 45% of Hispanic registered voters thought that most other Americans did not care about gun violence in communities of color.
80% of Hispanic registered voters said that they believed that police make their communities safer. In contrast, 62% of African Americans agreed with that statement.
The poll, conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group, the firm of Barack Obama’s campaign pollster, was commissioned by the Joyce Foundation, the Urban Institute, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, as part of a new report on the intersection of gun violence prevention and police and criminal justice reform in communities of color.
A similar online survey conducted by YouGov, a research firm, found African Americans more narrowly divided when asked to choose which they felt was “a bigger problem”: violence within the black community or racial injustice in the criminal justice system.
42% of black Americans said violence within the black community, “often known as ‘black on black crime’,” was the bigger problem, while 36% chose racial injustice in the criminal justice system. The margin of error in the poll was 4.4%.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 29 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 05:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 29 2016 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Kasich is very far from a moderate. He just doesn't stand out so people think of him as "generic Republican candidate." If he weren't 1 for 41 no one would think him moderate. Brings up an interesting question: Looking at the current state of legality in our country, is supporting gay marriage a moderate position now? Seems so. Somewhat related: did the approach of the "gay pride" movement, to try to garner media attention through provocative actions, prove effective or was it just about time for that movement to take off? I know I personally was really annoyed by that movement and similar ones (e.g. BLM protesters interrupting events). The purpose of those protests is to annoy and irritate. Just like the ones during the civil rights movement, which also blocked traffic and disrupted events. And as someone who grew up near the gay pride center of my state, those parades were annoying to work around. But I can’t really fault people for holding them since they are pushing for rights I got by default. Does that really work, as a general rule? I know that if those protests were the main indicator I got by which to judge gays, then I would be particularly less-than-sympathetic to their cause. I wonder to what extent it is actually beneficial to annoy and irritate.
|
President Barack Obama is opening a new front in the gun control debate, readying a big push for so-called smart gun technology — an initiative that the gun lobby and law enforcement rank and file is already mobilizing against.
As early as Friday, Obama is set to formally release findings from the Defense, Justice and Homeland Security Departments on ways to spur the development of guns that can be fired only by their owner, according to industry and gun control sources. Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett is slated to preview the announcement for stakeholders on Thursday afternoon.
It’s an intensification of an effort kicked off in January, when Obama ordered federal agencies to explore such technology and report back, as part of his series of executive actions for “common sense” gun reforms.
While the “smart gun” element of the actions drew little attention earlier this year, critics are gearing up to fight back against the possibility that such guns could be required for government firearms purchases.
A source familiar with the plans said that type of mandate isn’t on tap right now, but critics are still worried the administration is laying the groundwork for such a move. Among the biggest skeptics are cops worried about testing an unproven technology on the streets.
“Police officers in general, federal officers in particular, shouldn’t be asked to be the guinea pigs in evaluating a firearm that nobody’s even seen yet,” said James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. “We have some very, very serious questions.”
Pasco said he’s already been vocal about his concerns in private conversations with administration officials and he plans to keep up the drumbeat even as he waits for an official announcement. The gun lobby, meanwhile, is prepared to capitalize on genuine uncertainty among law enforcement about the not-ready-for-prime-time technology in order to limit enthusiasm for major new government investments.
The concept of smart guns is hardly new: researchers have been trying to develop electronic systems to make a gun fire only by an authorized user for almost three decades, with on-again, off-again help from the federal government.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it helps to have white people leading ur parades but not the hippie type
|
why can't those pesky sub humans not just suffer in silence and let us white hetero man reap our well deserved rewards from society..... it's annoying, and almost defeats the purpose of entrenched social classes and marginalizing minorities, if we still get to see or hear about them.
and in earnest: since we finally had a substancial talk about basic income a few pages ago, which went about 2/3rds "we don't need it (yet), as everyone can work to sustain" what do you think about male labor force participation rate at working age?: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.ACTI.MA.ZS/countries/US-DE-FR-SE?display=graph in the US it has declined in the great recession and not rebounded yet, so how do those people sustain themselfs? why should there be a mechanism always providing work, and how would that look? for me it is not obvious that there would always be a demand for people to do stuff, as capital gets increacingly concentrated the ability to pay a wage also gets concentrated to fewer actors, with fewer motivations and desires. when their demand is satisfied they won't hire. it is not about their financial ability to hire (that is as high as ever, as total purchasing power adjusted money in private hands is more than enough for everyone to have a decent life (especially with lower prices on former luxuries), it just does not circulate through everyone (and i would even posit through enough people)) it is only demand constrained, and nothing i see looks promising to sustain overall demand through this concentration of wealth process.
i was unemployed for about 2 years now, and start a job next week. i consider that a lucky opportunity, but can not have blind faith in an invisible hand providing opportunity for everyone when wage labor is just an expression of selling oneself to the whims of the diminishing and consolidating capital holders.
|
|
|
|