US Politics Mega-thread - Page 816

On January 24 2014 10:50 Introvert wrote:
First of all, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant.

SAN ANTONIO — Gov. Rick Perry signaled Thursday that he's for the decriminalization of marijuana use — not legalization, but the softening of punishment for pot users in the border state.

“As governor, I have begun to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” by introducing alternative “drug courts” that provide treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It's the first time the governor, who's voiced support for drug courts in the past, took a position on decriminalization in Texas.

His spokeswoman confirmed that Perry is staunchly opposed to legalization of marijuana because of the dangers that have been associated with the drug but is committed to policies that would lower the punishment for its use to keep smokers out of jail.

“Legalization is no penalty at all, whereas decriminalization doesn't necessarily mean jail time (for minor possession offenses). It means more of a fine or counseling or some sort of program where you don't end up in jail but in a rehabilitative program,” said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry.

“The goal is to keep people out of jails and reduce recidivism, that kind of thing,” she said, adding that decriminalization would exclude violent offenders and dealers.

On January 24 2014 11:21 Doublemint wrote:


Helping out wherever I can, especially helpful to people I feel miss critical points.

Huckabee has a show on Fox News. Fox News is an insanely profitable business, meaning they don't give him a show for shits and giggles - he is hardly irrelevant or he would be off the air.

And it's not giving out FREE stuff. It is being paid for by people pooling resources and the ones in need are going to get what their pay covers.

Only because you don't give two shits about him does not mean you are right.

Looking at this statement, what exactly is empowering?



It's from that lefty link posted earlier.

speaker at the RNC is irrelevant. like we didn't know already, but it sure is nice to get conservatives to agree too.

On January 24 2014 11:54 Doublemint wrote:
Huckabee is not one you would like to quote to win elections. About two steps behind Todd Akin in terms of "ass backwardness" regarding social policies.

Of course you are free to disagree with the healthcare law also known as ACA.

What about other women he doesn't know? Are they "victims of their gender", in need of him fighting a war for them?

The sad little truth is that Huckabee is relevant enough to be there for the Republican establishment to make sure evangelicals vote for them, yet not relevant enough to be taken seriously by more socially liberal Conservatives like you.

Utah will expand Medicaid under Obamacare, its Republican governor said Thursday.

"Doing nothing ... I’ve taken off the table. Doing nothing is not an option," Gov. Gary Herbert said at his monthly news conference, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

The state legislature has endorsed two plans for expanding Medicaid through private coverage, as Arkansas has already done. Under one plan, Medicaid dollars would pay for people up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level to purchase private insurance on HealthCare.gov. The alternative plan would use Medicaid dollars for people up to the poverty level to buy private coverage on HealthCare.gov; those above the poverty level would receive federal tax subsidies to help purchase insurance through the federal website.

It's not clear which strategy the state will adopt, and Herbert didn't express a preference. Medicaid expansion would cover 60,000 Utahans, according to the Tribune. Utah would be the 26th state, along with Washington, D.C., to accept expansion.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-five percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's system of government and how well it works, the highest percentage in Gallup's trend since 2001. Dissatisfaction is up five points since last year, and has edged above the previous high from 2012 (64%).

One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government. These views potentially hamper President Barack Obama's ability to propose large-scale government solutions in his State of the Union speech next week. However, this problem is not a new one for the president. Roughly two-thirds of Americans have expressed this view consistently since at least 2011, after the measure jumped a full 10 points between 2008 and 2011.

On January 24 2014 19:00 zlefin wrote:
If one were to shift some things from the federal level to the state and local level, how would one coordinate the necessary fund shifts on a political level?
i.e. if one were to reduce federal taxes (and programs) so that states could then add appropriate taxes (to cover programs deemed necessary), how could one set that up?
While the feds would get to lower taxes a lot, it would necessitate a large increase in state taxes, which would seem potentially difficult to do.

Yea, federal government is working poorly, especially the legislature. It could really use some rewriting.

On January 24 2014 18:50 Introvert wrote:







Slowly, slowly people are starting to get it...


http://www.gallup.com/poll/166985/dissatisfied-gov-system-works.aspx

On January 24 2014 19:10 Sub40APM wrote:

typically amorphous poll. You ask people line by line what they want to get rid of and they want to keep all the federal programs as is.

On January 24 2014 22:29 nunez wrote:
glory to the CEOs, who we recognize for their exceptional degree of holiness and whose unique, heavenly skillset laid waste to the wages of those filthy technicians.

maybe if the technicians instead through some divine intervention were imbued with the magical skills of an ace sales person, and worked really, really hard and good at... sales, they'd maybe, if they were really lucky, get to cup the balls of their CEO at lunch. maybe even work the shaft if the CEO so pleaseth.

why would you pay some guy hundreds of thousands of dollars to pick boogers out of your nose. i mean, come on.

On January 24 2014 23:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The bidding war over tech workers is part of the inequality problem in and around Silicon Valley.

On January 25 2014 00:06 nunez wrote:


prostitutes getting paid puts them at an unfair advantage over victims of rape.

On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?

Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?

Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance..