|
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 02 2014 05:15 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:05 WhiteDog wrote:On April 01 2014 22:47 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system. Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. ) And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not. Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful. I admit, it would be hard to find somebody that was fine with kids dying at 5 due to starvation and/or preventable disease, but they usually find a way to justify it as a failure of the third world government. You have to understand, I'm surrounded by people that think this, so it's not as shocking, and I get to hear lots of justification. As for your personal anecdote, not a lot of people would disagree with that or call it unfair. On April 01 2014 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument.
Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood.
Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." Source"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person." SourcePS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please. The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation. So, we take "excess" consumption (at least in your view) and extrapolate it across the entire world and call it "unsustainable." This conclusion is probably inline with a 3rd grader's analysis. There's no adjustments based on complex statistical findings, like price adjustments to scarcity or incentives to increase efficiency of resource utilization that go along with it. It's the same "overpopulation" arguments we've been hearing for decades that were proven to be false when we analyzed population growth rates in developed and developing countries and noticed there is a birthrate drop-off. Now there's another boogieman, big surprise. It is not the "excess" of consumption generalized to the world that is unsustainable, it is the current consumption. I'm really amazed at people who refuse to see what's before them and who continue to argue : what we are talking about is not the world and its realities, but your view on it and your desire in regard to its state. For exemple, social unrest is caused by the lack of inequalities between the middle class and the lower class, and not because of the inequalities between the 99 % and the 1 % ? Americans never understood the word class by the way.. We don't have such a long history of it compared to France. What matters to a lot of Americans isn't so much the size gap, but rather that the gap exists. ( Starcraft II analogy time!) + Show Spoiler +Think of how the Starcraft II ladder is set up now. We have 7 leagues, bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, master, and grandmaster. We have roughly even distribution between those leagues (except GM). This gives good incentives for those in the lower leagues to improve, and rewards them quite quickly if they put forth serious effort. It also helps those in mid-high leagues feel "superior" to those in the lower leagues, while pushing them to be part of the "prestigious" leagues. Those at the very top don't really care about leagues anyways, just a mastery of the game. People compare themselves to their peers and those directly above and below them.
If instead we changed the distribution of those leagues (ignoring GM) from the 20-20-20-20-18-2 into something more like 10 - 40 - 45 - 2.5 - 1.5 - 1. At the upper range of the scale, it's not that bad, you still have the elite and nearly elite having distinction between one another. However, at the lower scale, that changes. Of course, you still have your bad players down in bronze, but there's not that many and they noticeably have something seriously wrong or don't care all that much about getting better. But then there's the next 2 tiers that essentially grouped up 85% of the player base into 2 tiers. A lot of them know they aren't anywhere near the skill level of the top 2-4 tiers, but it weighs on the golds that they play so many silver players that seem so much worse, but are so close to their own level nominally. There's no clear distinction between 85% of the player base.
So that is what they ask for, distinction. Of course, the top (and near-top) is glorified and tries to keep out the riff-raff from the top leagues, they like their distinction. They suggest that more people should be put in bronze league since it would encourage them even more to get better, while telling those in silver/gold that all it takes is practice to make it into that top 1 / 2.5 / 5%. They write guides, give lessons, etc. to convince them that the fault is theirs, that they play poorly and need to get better to be prestigious. Truthfully, it's not their desire to be masters of the game, but to merely be recognized for the effort and skill that they do gain, so instead they lobby for more people to be put in bronze. Admittedly, it's not a great metaphor, but it does examine the frame of mind.
Americans have the same kind of history, and history is in books. What prevent americans from understanding social class was/is slavery. Inequalities are accepted or justified as long as they the poor is not white.
Just wanted to come back on your argumentation.
Some time ago I've heard a teacher at HEC (a business school) who've had this metaphore about the role of the state in an economy : the private sector is like a horse, and the state is a jockey. If the jockey is too big (understand if the state is too big - like in France) then the horse cannot run its course. Sure it's a good metaphore, only it's shit because you imply a lot of things on the relationship between the state and the private sector through this metaphore.
So all in all, it is stupid : using a metaphore out of thin air is just giving a biaised argument. You're talking about a dream in which the rule - that you set up - define what should be. Like most models in economy. What you need is to start from empirical data, and afterwards built your metaphore to explain reality. So what kind of empirical data do we have on inequalities ?
In economic history, it was always implied that inequalities were somehow the price for economic efficiency : in fact, there is a famous article from A. Okun called Equality and Efficiency : the big tradeoff (here). This was, from my point of view, driven by the US own distorted view on reality : the US always thought they were "the best" economically, but not because of their natural ressources, their natural growth, or their geography, but because of their own political and economical "state of mind".
Lately a lot of work tried to actually deal with this subject. Here is the result coming from a new study made by the IMF (in 2014) that show the impact of inequalities and redistribution on economic growth (with data coming from 150 countries) - here:
We have taken advantage of a new comprehensive data set to look at the relationship between inequality, redistribution, and growth; earlier work on the inequality-growth relationship has generally confounded the effects of redistribution and inequality. Our focus has been on the medium and long term, both growth over five-year periods and the duration of growth spells. Several important conclusions emerge.
First, inequality continues to be a robust and powerful determinant both of the pace of medium-term growth and of the duration of growth spells, even controlling for the size of redistributive transfers. Thus, the conclusions from Berg and Ostry (2011) would seem to be robust, even strengthened. It would still be a mistake to focus on growth and let inequality take
care of itself, not only because inequality may be ethically undesirable but also because the resulting growth may be low and unsustainable.
And second, there is surprisingly little evidence for the growth-destroying effects of fiscal redistribution at a macroeconomic level. We do find some mixed evidence that very large redistributions may have direct negative effects on growth duration, such that the overall effect—including the positive effect on growth through lower inequality—may be roughly growth-neutral. But for non-extreme redistributions, there is no evidence of any adverse direct effect. The average redistribution, and the associated reduction in inequality, is thus associated with higher and more durable growth.[...]
We nonetheless see an important positive conclusion from our look at the big picture. Extreme caution about redistribution—and thus inaction—is unlikely to be appropriate in many cases. On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations.
|
On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: Show nested quote +The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear.
|
On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear.
I dont know dog, you posted the Daily Mail with 'secret Rand memos' so those who live in glass houses...
|
(Reuters) - As the first Obamacare enrollment period comes to a close, U.S. insurers are already anticipating the need to raise prices for 2015 and fear that it will put them at the center of the political blame game over President Barack Obama's healthcare law.
The Obama administration declared victory on Tuesday over signing up more than 7 million people for this year, overcoming technology failures that stymied enrollment in the program's early weeks and Republican efforts to discredit it in the eyes of consumers.
But insurers have already said that the first group of new enrollees under Obamacare, as the law is widely known, represent a higher rate of older and costlier members than hoped. To keep their health plans from losing money in the coming years, many expect monthly premium rates to rise by double-digit percentages in some parts of the country.
That could set the stage for a public outcry ahead of congressional elections this year, giving ammunition to Republicans and creating new friction with the White House that could endure into the 2016 presidential election.
"I do think that it's likely premium rate shocks are coming. I think they begin to make themselves at least partially known in 2015 and fully known in 2016," said Chet Burrell, chief executive officer of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. "That will be different in different parts of the country. I don't think it will be uniformly the same."
source
Double digit price hikes while it already costs 328$ average. In The Netherlands a basic health insurance plan is like €100.
|
On April 02 2014 19:56 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +(Reuters) - As the first Obamacare enrollment period comes to a close, U.S. insurers are already anticipating the need to raise prices for 2015 and fear that it will put them at the center of the political blame game over President Barack Obama's healthcare law.
The Obama administration declared victory on Tuesday over signing up more than 7 million people for this year, overcoming technology failures that stymied enrollment in the program's early weeks and Republican efforts to discredit it in the eyes of consumers.
But insurers have already said that the first group of new enrollees under Obamacare, as the law is widely known, represent a higher rate of older and costlier members than hoped. To keep their health plans from losing money in the coming years, many expect monthly premium rates to rise by double-digit percentages in some parts of the country.
That could set the stage for a public outcry ahead of congressional elections this year, giving ammunition to Republicans and creating new friction with the White House that could endure into the 2016 presidential election.
"I do think that it's likely premium rate shocks are coming. I think they begin to make themselves at least partially known in 2015 and fully known in 2016," said Chet Burrell, chief executive officer of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. "That will be different in different parts of the country. I don't think it will be uniformly the same." sourceDouble digit price hikes while it already costs 328$ average. In The Netherlands a basic health insurance plan is like €100.
Health Insurance cost is a number that you can't just compare between countries because the state (and taxes) play a huge roll in the financing of the whole industry (hospitals, insurance companies, doctors...).
100 euros a month? No way in hell your not crossfunding this via taxes.
|
On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear.
You post "gotcha" shit like this all the time.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 02 2014 13:19 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Wow... talk about missing the mark  Conservatives love the empowerment of the individual and state over federal expansion. Everything starts from there. Why do you think conservatives are so against the Obamacare? this states rights shell game is always in the service of preserving some sort of local cabal doing stupid shit, like those states that refused federal money to provide service to their own people.
|
There's nothing quite like attempting to establish the identity of conservatism through a supposedly fundamental opposition to a program that was touted by conservatives less than 20 years ago.
|
On April 02 2014 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +A triumphant President Barack Obama declared his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better.' But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged Rose Garden appearance is a more unsettling reality.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.
Others were already insured, including millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn't meet Obamacare's strict minimum requirements.
Still, he claimed that 'millions of people who have health insurance would not have it' without his insurance law.' source
This article hilariously misconstrues what is actually in the RAND study, notably by not mentioning those who enrolled outside of the federal marketplace. Here's the actual LA Times news item on the topic, which uses the numbers of the RAND study.
• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.
• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.
Millions who were not covered previously are indeed covered now. Nice try, conservatives. The law is a success.
|
In a sharply divided ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court further eroded campaign finance laws by striking down limits on the total amount that an individual may donate across political candidates and committees in an election cycle.
The decision -- written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- held that "aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the other conservative justices but penned a separate opinion arguing that campaign finance restrictions should be wiped out further.
The conservative justices argued that eliminating aggregate cont limits doesn't give rise to "quid pro quo corruption" which the court recognized as a legitimate rationale for campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
The law currently permits individuals to spend no more than $2,600 per election per candidate, allowing for up to $5,200 for a primary and general election. The aggregate limit is $48,600 on contribution to candidates for an election cycle, and $74,600 on campaign committees. The Supreme Court ruling keeps the individual limits and eliminates the aggregate limits. Supporters of the law noted that without limits, a single donor could contribute as much as $3.6 million to a single politician between giving to candidates and committees.
Source
|
On April 03 2014 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +In a sharply divided ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court further eroded campaign finance laws by striking down limits on the total amount that an individual may donate across political candidates and committees in an election cycle.
The decision -- written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- held that "aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the other conservative justices but penned a separate opinion arguing that campaign finance restrictions should be wiped out further.
The conservative justices argued that eliminating aggregate cont limits doesn't give rise to "quid pro quo corruption" which the court recognized as a legitimate rationale for campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
The law currently permits individuals to spend no more than $2,600 per election per candidate, allowing for up to $5,200 for a primary and general election. The aggregate limit is $48,600 on contribution to candidates for an election cycle, and $74,600 on campaign committees. The Supreme Court ruling keeps the individual limits and eliminates the aggregate limits. Supporters of the law noted that without limits, a single donor could contribute as much as $3.6 million to a single politician between giving to candidates and committees. Source
While I am utterly opposed to unlimited financial support I don't think this will change much. Those who wanted to spend the money did so through varies loopholes anyway. Maybe this might actually make it easier to track such "support".
|
On April 03 2014 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +In a sharply divided ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court further eroded campaign finance laws by striking down limits on the total amount that an individual may donate across political candidates and committees in an election cycle.
The decision -- written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- held that "aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the other conservative justices but penned a separate opinion arguing that campaign finance restrictions should be wiped out further.
The conservative justices argued that eliminating aggregate cont limits doesn't give rise to "quid pro quo corruption" which the court recognized as a legitimate rationale for campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
The law currently permits individuals to spend no more than $2,600 per election per candidate, allowing for up to $5,200 for a primary and general election. The aggregate limit is $48,600 on contribution to candidates for an election cycle, and $74,600 on campaign committees. The Supreme Court ruling keeps the individual limits and eliminates the aggregate limits. Supporters of the law noted that without limits, a single donor could contribute as much as $3.6 million to a single politician between giving to candidates and committees. Source
I really don't see how any American can take any pride in our electoral system at this point. Our elections are a fucking joke.
Not that this ruling is going to change that much since money rules politics anyway, but we're obviously not going in the right direction here. Some more half-assed reasoning from the conservative majority.
|
On April 03 2014 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2014 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In a sharply divided ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court further eroded campaign finance laws by striking down limits on the total amount that an individual may donate across political candidates and committees in an election cycle.
The decision -- written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito -- held that "aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the other conservative justices but penned a separate opinion arguing that campaign finance restrictions should be wiped out further.
The conservative justices argued that eliminating aggregate cont limits doesn't give rise to "quid pro quo corruption" which the court recognized as a legitimate rationale for campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
The law currently permits individuals to spend no more than $2,600 per election per candidate, allowing for up to $5,200 for a primary and general election. The aggregate limit is $48,600 on contribution to candidates for an election cycle, and $74,600 on campaign committees. The Supreme Court ruling keeps the individual limits and eliminates the aggregate limits. Supporters of the law noted that without limits, a single donor could contribute as much as $3.6 million to a single politician between giving to candidates and committees. Source I really don't see how any American can take any pride in our electoral system at this point. Our elections are a fucking joke. Not that this ruling is going to change that much since money rules politics anyway, but we're obviously not going in the right direction here. Some more half-assed reasoning from the conservative majority.
I'm just going to take a wild guess that you really don't understand the rationale.
|
On April 02 2014 16:27 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear. I dont know dog, you posted the Daily Mail with 'secret Rand memos' so those who live in glass houses... If you want to make the case, cite chapter and verse. "The group was so offended by the idea?" I'll offer a third place this would find a better home: A Democratic National Committee statement.
On April 02 2014 21:45 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear. You post "gotcha" shit like this all the time. And the so-called journalists at HuffPo don't report, they editorialize. Investigative journalism this is not, it's an Op-Ed by another name. To shame.
On April 03 2014 01:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 06:21 Danglars wrote:A triumphant President Barack Obama declared his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better.' But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged Rose Garden appearance is a more unsettling reality.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.
Others were already insured, including millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn't meet Obamacare's strict minimum requirements.
Still, he claimed that 'millions of people who have health insurance would not have it' without his insurance law.' source This article hilariously misconstrues what is actually in the RAND study, notably by not mentioning those who enrolled outside of the federal marketplace. Here's the actual LA Times news item on the topic, which uses the numbers of the RAND study. Show nested quote +• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.
• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates. Millions who were not covered previously are indeed covered now. Nice try, conservatives. The law is a success. Like everybody else that is eager to call anything Obama a success before its time, you confuse singups with actual paid enrollees. Obama says 7.1 million, thank me very much. Perhaps he misspoke and meant 9 million and referred to the stick of Obamacare beating people into the ranks of the uninsured. As it stands, the exchanges are a colossal failure and remain so.
|
On April 02 2014 08:33 Wolfstan wrote:
Just socialize the fucking healthcare geez.
Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated and financing goes into general revenues.
Reform tort laws while you do it.
Cut out the middle man insurance companies and HMO's.
Politically declare 300 million now have healthcare.
Budgetize it at 15% GDP falling .5% each year for 10 years to bring it in line with other OECD countries at 10%.
?????
Profit. A lot of things work and have my support if medicare and medicaid are eliminated. Tort reform has been on conservative platforms for a very long time, contrary to the relative inaction taken on it. With Medicare and Medicaid gone, a new welfare scheme can be developed involving money (call it vouchers if you want) to take to private companies to buy the plan you want. I still want those insurance companies, freed from cumbersome regulation and perverted minimum coverage requirements, competing for the business. The main change for them is not prejudicing employers with tax breaks and the rest, but allowing the same for individuals purchasing for themselves apart from employers. The second change is the choice for employees to take their same health plan between jobs and have the next employer may payments into it etc.
|
Its amazing what you can do when you force people to do something and penalize them if they don't.
Saying that obamacare is a sucess when bearly 2 percent of the population interacted with it is pretty stupid. Its like saying a team will be a sucess that year beacuse they sold out their season tickets.
|
On April 03 2014 03:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2014 01:36 kwizach wrote:On April 02 2014 06:21 Danglars wrote:A triumphant President Barack Obama declared his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better.' But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged Rose Garden appearance is a more unsettling reality.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.
Others were already insured, including millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn't meet Obamacare's strict minimum requirements.
Still, he claimed that 'millions of people who have health insurance would not have it' without his insurance law.' source This article hilariously misconstrues what is actually in the RAND study, notably by not mentioning those who enrolled outside of the federal marketplace. Here's the actual LA Times news item on the topic, which uses the numbers of the RAND study. • At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.
• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates. Millions who were not covered previously are indeed covered now. Nice try, conservatives. The law is a success. Like everybody else that is eager to call anything Obama a success before its time, you confuse singups with actual paid enrollees. Obama says 7.1 million, thank me very much. Perhaps he misspoke and meant 9 million and referred to the stick of Obamacare beating people into the ranks of the uninsured. As it stands, the exchanges are a colossal failure and remain so.
Nobody is confusing signups with paid enrollees. Your article tries to claim that less than a million people who were previously uninsured have started to pay for their new policies. That is false. This is what is written in your article:
The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.
And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.
If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.
How does the article get that number? It multiplied 7 million by 23/100 and then by 53/100. Yet, as the article I quoted indicates, this completely ignores the "4.5 million previously uninsured adults [who] have signed up for state Medicaid programs", an "additional 3 million young adults [who] have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26", and "[a]bout 9 million people [who] have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces". Indeed, "the vast majority of [the latter] were previously insured."
From these numbers, you therefore have millions of people who were previously uninsured, are now insured and have started paying. Again, nice try.
On April 03 2014 04:17 Sermokala wrote:
Saying that obamacare is a sucess when bearly 2 percent of the population interacted with it is pretty stupid. Its like saying a team will be a sucess that year beacuse they sold out their season tickets.
The aim of the law is to allow more people to be covered. Millions of people who were previously uninsured are now getting coverage, and the numbers are ahead of expectations. It is clearly a success.
|
On April 02 2014 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different. I had no idea conservatives were so bullish on Solar energy? From what I'm gathering you are suggesting solar energy is going to increase it's market share in the US around 20x what it is now? I know plenty of left leaners who would be so optimistic but again I had no Idea conservatives expected this to happen. I feel like this is news that conservatives support their 'unlimited pie' model with expectations that oil and natural gas will make up less than 20% of the US market share in how many years is it that you expect there Johnny? 25,50, 75, 100? You might want to tell your fellow conservatives this news so they can help get the message out about how viable and necessary it is to their world view.
The history of resource scarcity is that as a particular resource becomes more dear, it gets economized, new sources of the resources are brought to market, and substitutes are employed.
I propose that that process can plausibly continue. I offer solar energy as an example - the price is falling quickly and so over time it will be easier and easier to substitute solar for conventional energy. Solar isn't the only example I can give either. There are many new promising energy technologies out there.
If you want to prove that resources are running out, you need to demonstrate that there is some barrier that prevents the usual process of economizing and substitution from taking place going forward. So far, you haven't done that.
|
On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 21:45 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 02 2014 15:53 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Typical HuffPo. Journalism was never so great as when it stooped to "this group was so offended by the idea." This is quite the face palm moment. It's like they can't hide their glee on a hit piece even behind the shroud of "reporting" because it's just too juicy. Wake me up when they write stories about how Obama was so offended by people having choice in health insurance plans that he signed laws and executive orders taking them away. Better suited for publication in "The Daily Worker" or "The New Masses" of yesteryear. You post "gotcha" shit like this all the time. And the so-called journalists at HuffPo don't report, they editorialize. Investigative journalism this is not, it's an Op-Ed by another name. To shame.
I'll rephrase so you can understand my point: you post so-called investigative-journalism "articles" that are really just editorialized "Op-Eds" by another name all the time.
To further eliminate any subtlety in my point, I will explicitly state it instead: you criticizing an article like that is hypocritical, given your track record for posting articles presented as fact that are really editorialized opinion pieces that often incorrectly misconstrue information to favour an ideological position.
The fact that Farvacola recently posted a rebuttal of your Rand corporation "article" is particularly funny, given the circumstances.
For shame.
|
On April 03 2014 00:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 13:19 jellyjello wrote:On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Wow... talk about missing the mark Conservatives love the empowerment of the individual and state over federal expansion. Everything starts from there. Why do you think conservatives are so against the Obamacare? this states rights shell game is always in the service of preserving some sort of local cabal doing stupid shit, like those states that refused federal money to provide service to their own people.
It's working quite well. All day long people are complaining about how expensive healthcare policies are. Of course any mention of states blocking funding is met with no attempt to understand the actual situation. So yeah this strategy is working amazingly, Republicans know their base well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.07.03/history.png)
![[image loading]](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-1.jpg)
