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 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
On August 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
I assume you're referring to former president Ronald Reagan, not the Holy Saint Reagan of the Free Market.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
Nixon would make Reagan look like a Communist, too. He may have been a crook, but you can't say his healthcare plan wasn't pretty neat. Apparently Ted Kennedy regretted stonewalling that plan more than anything else he did during his time in Washington. I wonder (if the Republicans eventually succeed in torpedoing the ACA) they'll feel the same in a few decades.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
Yeah, and JFK was a radical Tea Party guy because he cut taxes on the rich.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) campaign manager said he's begrudgingly working in his current capacity to help the presidential prospects of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), according to an explosive phone recording that surfaced Thursday.
In the recording, obtained by Economic Policy Journal, Jesse Benton — who ran Paul's successful 2010 campaign before joining McConnell's team — told conservative activist Dennis Fusaro that he has an ulterior motive in working the GOP leader's 2014 campaign.
"Between you an me, I'm sorta holding my nose for two years," Benton said in the recording, "'cause what we're doing here is gonna be a big benefit to Rand in '16."
The call was recorded by Fusaro on January 9.
McConnell endorsed Paul's GOP primary opponent, Trey Grayson, in 2010. Paul, however, made it clear that he's backing McConnell in his re-election effort next year.
Benton pushed back forcefully, issuing a statement to denounce the recording and reiterate his commitment to McConnell's campaign.
"It is truly sick that someone would record a private phone conversation I had out of kindness and use it to try to hurt me," he said in the statement. "I believe in Senator McConnell and am 100 percent committed to his re-election. Being selected to lead his campaign is one of the great honors of my life and I look forward to victory in November of 2014."
Weird... can't say I've ever heard of such a thing as a "medical-sharing ministry". The "monopoly" aspect is a bit weird as well.
Opting-out of Obamacare through medical-sharing ministries
It's gotten little attention, but it's true: The individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act requires all Americans to have health insurance or face penalties, but members of medical-sharing ministries are exempt from the individual mandate that will be enforced beginning in 2015.
It's there because of the work of then-Congressmen Tom Perriello, a Virginia Democrat and Sens. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, and Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, who fought to add the exemption to the law. It's the same principle that allowed for the Amish to be exempted from the individual mandate—with the crucial difference that it's a lot more practical to join Medi-Share than it is to become Amish.
Founded in 1993, Medi-Share historically grew at roughly 10 percent a year. Since the Obamacare passed in the 2010, growth has ticked up to 15 percent as some Americans look to end-run the mandate. About 150,000 people are members of medical-sharing ministries, and 60,000 of them belong to Medi-Share, according to Medi-Share President and CEO Tony Meggs.
The exemption requires qualifying health-sharing ministries to have been in operation before Dec. 31,1999, which gives something of a monopoly to Medi-Share and the two other qualifying organizations, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries.
Here's how it works: To join Medi-Share, members must pledge their Christian faith and promise not to drink, take drugs or have sex outside of a traditional marriage. A reference from a minister may also be requested. Certain pre-existing conditions render applicants ineligible, while chronic issues such as obesity sometimes lead to acceptance into the program contingent on undergoing wellness counseling.
The coverage doesn't include products of "un-Biblical lifestyles," such as contraception or substance rehab, or some preventive medicine, including colonoscopies and annual mammograms. Those policies lead to lower costs for all members, Meggs said. ...
Attorney General Eric Holder is rumored to be proposing major reforms to drug sentencing in the coming weeks, and if a Wednesday interview with NPR is any indication, the changes could signal a pivot from the aggressive policies embraced by the Justice Department.
"I think there are too many people in jail for too long, and for not necessarily good reasons," Holder said in the interview, turning from the department's highly criticized crackdown on drug law enforcement. As NPR noted, almost half of the people in federal prison are serving time for drug charges.
"The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old," he continued. "There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color."
Holder hinted in the interview that the changes could include better prioritization of federal law enforcement and shortened sentences for minor drug offenses. According to NPR, Holder could announce his proposal as early as next week in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
Yeah, and JFK was a radical Tea Party guy because he cut taxes on the rich.
Oh those days when the Democrats had their conservative wing. You could be pro-trade and a tax cutter in the Democratic party and win a primary and election.
“Our present tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth. It siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power. It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking.”
My jaw would drop if any elected Democrat gave that line today. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives, and is an important reminder to that. If you articulate the conservative viewpoints in a powerful way to enough people across a span of time, you will convince them. He fought for tax cuts and won, he fought to combat the bloat of government, even shutting it down a few times, and experienced failure with some mixed success. Today we simply have that repeated lie that electability is necessarily lost if you incorporate Tea Party philosophy and actually fight the congressional battles for it. The stories of how tea party candidates overcame the opposition from their own party and denial of RNC funding and still won their primaries is conveniently forgotten.
I'm predicting a gradual erosion of support for beltway Republicans, for moderates, as more and more figure out that they aren't in Congress to fight for their views of their constituency. They come back talking the good talk every few years, leave and walk starkly differently. If the reverse is true, and RINOs, more than just riding on incumbency, are elected for what they do, I'll eat my words. And my, look at how those Congressional job approval numbers are trending.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Danglars wrote: There's a limit to how much moderate Republicans can continue to not represent the wishes of their representatives and continue to be re-elected. They're good on lip service and voting on token measures. They have those by the truckloads. They're about as effective as bumper stickers. When it comes to using their House majority, what power they have, to actually go and do something about it, they cower and whine. In every solution, there is an unwillingness to turn their professed views into action. That is why this battle is more than obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. It's a clear cut example as to why new Republican leadership is needed.
Moderate Republicans have more action and passionate dialogue when they talk about how elected representatives to their right are radicals and herald the end of the party. It doesn't matter if they stand for anything, so long as they say they stand for something, and are acting for the good of the party. The current leadership is not in it to stop the growth of government, period. I bet a good portion really are fine with big government and only talk about reducing it to appease their voting base.
Aside from the political rhetoric, it would behoove thinkers here to see how many times the government has been shutdown in the last 40-50 years and how we somehow managed to live (actually, shutdown is really the misnomer here, since the government does not shut down as a matter of federal law/statute. Essential personnel still work and get paid, the social security checks and medicare checks still go out. However, it's great fodder for Democrats to scare people and get RINOs nervous politically)
But there's also a limit to how much Republicans can tack right and maintain electability, hence the struggles between radical and conservative elements in the party. It's crazy to think how Reagan would be considered a radical socialist these days....
Yeah, and JFK was a radical Tea Party guy because he cut taxes on the rich.
Oh those days when the Democrats had their conservative wing. You could be pro-trade and a tax cutter in the Democratic party and win a primary and election.
“Our present tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth. It siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power. It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking.”
My jaw would drop if any elected Democrat gave that line today. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives, and is an important reminder to that. If you articulate the conservative viewpoints in a powerful way to enough people across a span of time, you will convince them. He fought for tax cuts and won, he fought to combat the bloat of government, even shutting it down a few times, and experienced failure with some mixed success. Today we simply have that repeated lie that electability is necessarily lost if you incorporate Tea Party philosophy and actually fight the congressional battles for it. The stories of how tea party candidates overcame the opposition from their own party and denial of RNC funding and still won their primaries is conveniently forgotten.
I'm predicting a gradual erosion of support for beltway Republicans, for moderates, as more and more figure out that they aren't in Congress to fight for their views of their constituency. They come back talking the good talk every few years, leave and walk starkly differently. If the reverse is true, and RINOs, more than just riding on incumbency, are elected for what they do, I'll eat my words. And my, look at how those Congressional job approval numbers are trending.
You'd almost think that a rational approach to policy is what made these hallmark politicians great, not some irrational attachment to ideology. I wonder when a rational Tea Party Republican will get elected...
“Our present tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth. It siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power. It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking.”
My jaw would drop if any elected Democrat gave that line today. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
You do realize the tax rates have changed since Kennedy's time, right?
I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
That's about as unfair a generalization as those who simplistically think that.
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
I don't know how much of a minority it is these days, but I do believe those who think jail is the proper response are the minority. If you think that corporations should be made to pay their lowest employees more in pay and benefits and use their profits as justification for that, you might just well have a majority in that opinion. Of course, who even believes that progressive taxes can function as a punishment on success these days. Entrepreneurs are immune!
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
Because productivity has been rising while wages have stagnated. The wages for rich have gone up massively so now there's huge wealth disparity.
Another way to say it is that the rich have rigged the system to take the middle class wages for themselves.
Edit: Also, there's massive amount of corruption in our government due to the influx of money in politics. Tons of legal bribery and under-the-table bullshit that makes it more of a corporate oligarchy rather than a democracy. Obviously when rich people have an unfair advantage in a democracy, then it's going to grow class tensions.
There's also things like the financial industry collapsing under their own idiotic and risky ventures and crashing the economy. And republicans think the only way to fix it is to punish poor people and the middle class by getting rid of food stamps and burdening them with more private debt. The wealth of the financial industry has skyrocketed compared to the wealth of CEOs and business owners.
I can keep going. The fact of the matter is that having higher taxes on the wealthy would be better for our budget and economy. But it's really a lot more fun to pose it as wealthy being a bunch of mustache-twirlers. So I'm going to do that.
NEWARK, N.J., Aug 8 (Reuters) - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a likely Republican contender for the White House in 2016, on Thursday signed into law 10 bills tightening restrictions on guns in the state.
The measures including banning the purchase of handguns by people on a federal watch list of potential terrorism suspects, stepping up penalties on some firearms violations and exempting gun records from the state's open public records law.
The moves made New Jersey the latest northeastern state to tighten gun laws in the wake of a December school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 young students and educators dead and sparked a renewed debate on gun control.
"These common-sense measures will both strengthen New Jersey's already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who commit gun crimes and violate gun trafficking laws," said Christie, who is expected to easily win reelection this year.
NEWARK, N.J., Aug 8 (Reuters) - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a likely Republican contender for the White House in 2016, on Thursday signed into law 10 bills tightening restrictions on guns in the state.
The measures including banning the purchase of handguns by people on a federal watch list of potential terrorism suspects, stepping up penalties on some firearms violations and exempting gun records from the state's open public records law.
The moves made New Jersey the latest northeastern state to tighten gun laws in the wake of a December school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 young students and educators dead and sparked a renewed debate on gun control.
"These common-sense measures will both strengthen New Jersey's already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who commit gun crimes and violate gun trafficking laws," said Christie, who is expected to easily win reelection this year.
On August 09 2013 07:56 Wolfstan wrote: I just don't understand the bigotry against the rich in America, why does a vocal minority(?) believe that the average wealthy guy is bad and should be punished with fines/taxes and jail?
Because productivity has been rising while wages have stagnated. The wages for rich have gone up massively so now there's huge wealth disparity.
Another way to say it is that the rich have rigged the system to take the middle class wages for themselves.
Edit: Also, there's massive amount of corruption in our government due to the influx of money in politics. Tons of legal bribery and under-the-table bullshit that makes it more of a corporate oligarchy rather than a democracy. Obviously when rich people have an unfair advantage in a democracy, then it's going to grow class tensions.
There's also things like the financial industry collapsing under their own idiotic and risky ventures and crashing the economy. And republicans think the only way to fix it is to punish poor people and the middle class by getting rid of food stamps and burdening them with more private debt. The wealth of the financial industry has skyrocketed compared to the wealth of CEOs and business owners.
I can keep going. The fact of the matter is that having higher taxes on the wealthy would be better for our budget and economy. But it's really a lot more fun to pose it as wealthy being a bunch of mustache-twirlers. So I'm going to do that.
Hope that clears some things up.
Wages stagnated largely because of a shift from paying employees in taxable wages to tax free benefits (like health insurance).
There's also a recent (i.e. last decade or so) global shift in income going from labor to capital. I'm not sure what the cause of that is, probably some combination of globalization and aging demographics.
On top of that technological changes have favored skilled labor and so productivity and corresponding compensation increases have accumulated there.
As for banks, just repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with much higher capital requirements
. It is all about taxing the big achievers to finance social justice, equality of results, and an expanding welfare state--growth be damned. Assume businesses will be just fine.
Taxes were much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s yet mysteriously growth was not damned. conversely, the massive bush tax cuts coincided with generally poor and uneven growth. So maybe the straight line of tax cuts = growth isnt as straight as one might believe
Reagan does represent the electability of conservatives,
in a country that was much whiter and more socially conservative against opponents who make mitt romney machiavelian in their politics and on a political platform that today would be centrist. In other words, Reagen would not have survived his primaries.
NEWARK, N.J., Aug 8 (Reuters) - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a likely Republican contender for the White House in 2016, on Thursday signed into law 10 bills tightening restrictions on guns in the state.
The measures including banning the purchase of handguns by people on a federal watch list of potential terrorism suspects, stepping up penalties on some firearms violations and exempting gun records from the state's open public records law.
The moves made New Jersey the latest northeastern state to tighten gun laws in the wake of a December school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 young students and educators dead and sparked a renewed debate on gun control.
"These common-sense measures will both strengthen New Jersey's already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who commit gun crimes and violate gun trafficking laws," said Christie, who is expected to easily win reelection this year.
I was so stoked for the possibility that Christie would become the GOP nominee in 2016. I guess that's not going to happen now... :/
Considering that Christie will likely win re-election and remain on the national stage, perhaps a more optimistic view would be that he could very well shift the GOP towards the center...
Nah, you're right, it's probably not gonna happen.
EPT
