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.
No. We aren't deriving the number of people who are capable of working yet on disability from that data set. Your data was irrelevant. If you really think its relevant this discussion might be over your head.
Except no one is deriving "the number" at all ROFLMAO!
ROFLMAO is right, a number doesn't need to be derived for the argument to be valid. Moreover, the fact that you cited irrelevant data, and insisted that it was relevant, remains.
Sure, but the one min video didn't break down a policy stance in detail so if we're to have a policy discussion you have to allow me to actually propose a policy change. Now if you want to talk about how you feel his comments were mean, count me out.
You were just the only person who tried to say he was saying something different. I was just pointing out what he said is no where near what you are saying.
I explained at the start. He was differentiating between people who, in his eyes, have a legitimate need and those who don't. A working policy example of that would be DI reform. It is different, but it is certainly related.
That's intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to make up a number just so that you can counter with a prepared talking point.
Is that a joke? You wouldn't be making anything up you just said you 'extracted' it from your data. So just come out with it...Unless you now claiming you have this mystery number but you just don't want to share it because you would be proving my point? (This is getting pretty funny)
No, I never said that I extracted a number from the data. If you look at the NPR article there are clear trends and correlations that you can draw from the data. I don't know what your issue here is. Are you unable to look at information yourself and draw your own conclusions?
For what it's worth, bitching about the disability system is a little bit out of date. The gravy train was shut off about 2 years ago. The ALJs in charge of hearing disability claims have been given marching orders to tighten up their granting of benefits, and they are certainly following them. If anything, the problem now is that legitimate claims are being denied. Just ask the SSDI attorneys how things have changed.
Even Xdaunt thinks your 'bitching' is 'out of date'. You would think it be sinking in by now?
I don't know if xdaunt is correct or not. Here's a news story from march referencing the issue and a new paper on the topic that came out a couple months ago. If I'm behind the curve, so are a lot of people.
I have drawn a conclusion. It is that the number of work able people on disability, to avoid work, is a relatively insignificant number and that suggestions that reducing it would have a significant impact on funds is completely unfounded.
I am not going to argue about the data I presented because it's relevance is obvious and your refusal to admit it, has nothing to do with it's relevance. But I will say, my data can't possibly be further from this discussion than your position is from what the Senate candidate said.
You say your data shows trends and correlations and that through those you are able to divine some understanding that there is some significant number of work-able people lazily sitting on disability. But you can't even suggest the size of this 'significant' population beyond it's self proclaimed 'significance'. That is just pathetic.
I don't know if xdaunt is correct or not. Here's a news story from march referencing the issue and a new paper on the topic that came out a couple months ago. If I'm behind the curve, so are a lot of people.
Just curious if you realized the position outlined in the article suggests that the people who you claim to be a significant number could only exist if they uniformly are not 'rational, self-interested' decision makers. So you probably don't want to use any model that uses that assumption to predict their behavior.... Surprise surprise yet another piece claiming it's a significant problem but can't seem to force itself to even guesstimate the size. It should also probably been noted that several reforms Europe is undertaking are things we've been doing for years as was pointed out in a video I posted earlier by a former Bush official.
Is there any other policy discussion where the frequency of the transgression is so impossible to generate even the roughest estimate on?
Anyway here is an article showing (in a similar way to your NPR article) how it is fair to say that work-able people are not on disability to dodge working, for it seems when companies make room for disabled employees they leap at the opportunity to work. Every piece I can find seems to suggest that disabled people are looking/trying really hard to find jobs, not avoiding them.
Creating accommodations for most of those workers cost less than $25 apiece, and they hold the same jobs, receive the same pay, and are held to the same productivity standards as other employees, J. Randolph Lewis, senior vice-president of supply chain and logistics at Walgreens, said in Mar. 2 Senate testimony.
It seems as though one of the largest barriers in getting work-able people on disability back to work is the ignorance of employers not the laziness of the workers.
Instead of making an unspecified number of people sound bad and calling them criminals, people who want them to work should be talking about creating jobs that they could do. Remember they still have to compete with 8%+ of non legally disabled people for the same jobs, so 'finding a job at McDonald's where you can sit most of the day' (which literally doesn't exist under the corporate level and shows you probably never worked at one, or comprehend disabling back pain) would have to be done along side able bodied people who would want that job too.
The fastest and best way to get work-able people, however few they may be, off of disability, is creating jobs, not ratcheting up policing which will likely cost as much or more money than it saves. (although that becomes hard to estimate when the people claiming it would save money don't even know how many people it is they say the policing would catch, or miss for that matter).
So next time you want to make it sound like disability is being overrun/significantly depleted by criminals.... just don't. At least until you have a shred of evidence to back it up. I'm not talking anecdotes either, but real data that gives at least an estimate of how many people we are even talking about.
Internet libertarians calling for the equal treatment of all Internet data have camped out in front of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, D.C., saying they won’t quit their Occupy-style protest until the regulator stands up for Net neutrality.
About 15 people stood outside the FCC’s headquarters on Wednesday afternoon in a protest organized by the group Fight for the Future and Popular Resistance. Five of the demonstrators said they were determined to set up camp overnight and stick around until May 15, when the commission is set to unveil proposed new Net neutrality rules — or perhaps longer, if the new rules don’t meet their expectations.
Margaret Flowers of Popular Resistance says members of the protest – officially called “Camp Out to Save Net Neutrality” or “People’s Firewall FCC Camp” and unofficially as “Occupy FCC” – are in it for the long haul, bringing sleeping bags, signs and chants, such as “Hey, hey FCC, the Internet must be free” and “FCC drop the barrier, make the Internet a common carrier.”
Net neutrality rules previously required telecommunications companies to treat all data flowing through the Web the same, meaning no-name blogs load as fast as big name — and big money — websites. But a January Federal Appeals court ruling said there was no guarantee to Net neutrality because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 designates Web traffic as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service."
Without that obligation, advocates say, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will start charging premiums for service speed, putting free speech on the Web at risk and harming business start ups.
Open Internet advocates worry that the proposed rules will allow service provides to force consumers and the websites they visit to pay ISPs for the privilege of fast service.
Last week, the Republican-led House Committee on Energy and Commerce released information claiming only 67% of enrollees in insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act made their first premium payment. The data was paraded around as a talking point ahead of the Obama administration's final release of stats from the law's first open enrollment period. On Wednesday, that talking point blew up.
Three of the country's largest insurers — Aetna, WellPoint, and Health Care Service Corp., which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states — said between 80-90% of new customers who enrolled through Obamacare paid their first month's premiums. Executives from the companies announced the news in testimony before the very same House Committee on Energy and Commerce where Republicans touted the contrary data last week.
Opposition to the tea party has returned to its all-time high, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.
Gallup, which has been tracking opposition since 2010, found that 30 percent of those surveyed said they opposed the tea party while 22 percent said they supported the movement. A larger 48 percent said they had no opinion.
In 2010, 30 percent of national adults told Gallup that they were opponents of the tea party while 32 percent said they supported the movement. At the time 38 percent of national adults said they had no opinion or neither supported or opposed the movement.
The 30 percent identifying as opponents is the highest level Gallup has found since it began asking the question.
Broken down by party affiliation, 41 percent of Republicans or people who said they lean Republican said they supported the movement in the most recent survey. Eleven percent said they were opponents of the movement and 48 percent said they were neither supporters or opponents. By contrast, in 2010, 61 percent said they were supporters of the movement while just 5 percent said they were opponents. Thirty-four percent of Republicans and those who identify as leaning toward Republicans said they had no opinion.
President Obama at Hollywood Fundraiser: Politics Needs to Break Out of Cycle of ‘Dysfunction’
President Obama on Wednesday raised money for House and Senate candidates at the home of Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn and his wife Cindy, in an effort to boost Hollywood contributions in advance of what looks to be a difficult midterm election season for Democrats.
Among the 90 or so in attendance were Barbra Streisand, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Tom Rothman and James Brolin, according to a pool report. Guests had dinner under a tent in the Horns’ backyard.
Acknowledging that despite a list of accomplishments that there is still a “disquiet around the country” as well as “an anxiety, and a sense a frustration,” Obama said that “the challenges out there remain daunting and we have a Washington that’s not working.”
Obama warned of “a self-fulfilling prophesy” during a midterm election year where “people who have the most at stake in a government that works opt out of the system; those who don’t believe government can do anything are empowered; gridlock reigns, and we got this downward spiral of even more cynicism and more dysfunction. And we have to break out of that cycle and that’s what this election all about,” Obama said, in remarks that lasted about 15 minutes.
He added that his travels to other countries have led him not to “buy this notion purported here that that somehow America is on a downward trajectory. By every indicator we are better positioned than any country on earth to succeed in this knowledge economy in the 21st century. But what is absolutely true is that if we don’t make good choices we could decline, and we’re not going to make good choices unless we break out of this cycle in which dysfunction breeds cynicism, and we have to break out of it. And that happens during midterms. That does not happen during presidential elections.”
Opposition to the tea party has returned to its all-time high, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.
Gallup, which has been tracking opposition since 2010, found that 30 percent of those surveyed said they opposed the tea party while 22 percent said they supported the movement. A larger 48 percent said they had no opinion.
In 2010, 30 percent of national adults told Gallup that they were opponents of the tea party while 32 percent said they supported the movement. At the time 38 percent of national adults said they had no opinion or neither supported or opposed the movement.
The 30 percent identifying as opponents is the highest level Gallup has found since it began asking the question.
Broken down by party affiliation, 41 percent of Republicans or people who said they lean Republican said they supported the movement in the most recent survey. Eleven percent said they were opponents of the movement and 48 percent said they were neither supporters or opponents. By contrast, in 2010, 61 percent said they were supporters of the movement while just 5 percent said they were opponents. Thirty-four percent of Republicans and those who identify as leaning toward Republicans said they had no opinion.
I find it astonishing how powerful the Tea Party is without even a majority of support from Republican leaners?
It seems the Republican strategy of attempting to buy win local elections may come back to bite them in the senate elections since there will be either a overly conservative initiative on the ballot as in Colorado and it's person-hood amendment (similar ones have failed resoundingly) or the Legalization of Medical Cannabis in Alaska which will be pulling out democrats to the polls who would normally sit out a midterm election.
Tillis in NC is another Tea Party lite candidate who had to move further to his right to win, along with a healthy cash injection from Rove&co. As was shown in the video earlier, and in his tenure as speaker for NC, he is pretty far right, calling for a 'Divide and Conquer' campaign against his own constituents who are on social programs. And he's the one the Republican establishment wanted?
The Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads spent north of $2 million propping up state House Speaker Thom Tillis when the candidate himself lacked the resources to go on statewide television. A few weeks ago, most Republicans in North Carolina were predicting that Tillis would not be able to break 40% of the vote, thereby forcing a July runoff election. But with the help of outside spending, a largely error-free campaign and the inability of his underfunded grassroots challengers to land a punch, Tillis surged late and cleared the runoff hurdle easily. Republicans are breathing easier, confident they have the candidate with the best shot to beat Democrat Hagan.
Within weeks, President Barack Obama's administration is set to unveil unprecedented emissions limits on power plants across the United States, much to the dismay of many Democratic candidates who are running for election in energy-producing states. Fearful of a political backlash, they wish their fellow Democrat in the White House would hold off until after the voting.
But Obama can't wait that long.
Unlike the Keystone XL oil pipeline, whose review the administration has delayed, probably until after November's elections, the clock is ticking for the power plant rules — the cornerstone of Obama's campaign to curb climate change. Unless he starts now, the rules won't be in place before he leaves office. If they're not set when he leaves, it will be easier for his successor to stop them.
So even though the action could bolster Republican attacks against some of this year's most vulnerable Democrats, the administration is proceeding at full speed. Obama's counselor on climate issues, John Podesta, affirmed that the proposal will be unveiled in early June, just as this year's general election is heating up.
"Having this debate now will only injure Democrats," said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic strategist. "Democrats are in trouble."
To be sure, Americans generally support cutting pollution. A Pew Research Center poll late last year found 65 percent of Americans favor "setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change," while 30 percent were opposed.
But Democrats are fighting most of their toughest races this year in conservative-leaning states that rely heavily on the energy industry, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska and Montana. Already, conservative groups have spent millions accusing Democrats in those states of supporting energy policies that would impede local jobs and economic development.
Never mind that it's the Obama administration — not House or Senate candidates — drafting the rules. Even when Democrats try to distance themselves from Obama on the issue, Republicans say that's evidence that congressional Democrats are unable to rein in their party's out-of-control president.
Never mind that it's the Obama administration — not House or Senate candidates — drafting the rules. Even when Democrats try to distance themselves from Obama on the issue, Republicans say that's evidence that congressional Democrats are unable to rein in their party's out-of-control president.
We're not really going to pretend that democrats are anything resembling pro-energy, are we? Let's just say it like it is: democrats are generally anti-energy (particularly fossil fuels) except when it comes to solar and sometimes wind.
Opposition to the tea party has returned to its all-time high, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.
Gallup, which has been tracking opposition since 2010, found that 30 percent of those surveyed said they opposed the tea party while 22 percent said they supported the movement. A larger 48 percent said they had no opinion.
In 2010, 30 percent of national adults told Gallup that they were opponents of the tea party while 32 percent said they supported the movement. At the time 38 percent of national adults said they had no opinion or neither supported or opposed the movement.
The 30 percent identifying as opponents is the highest level Gallup has found since it began asking the question.
Broken down by party affiliation, 41 percent of Republicans or people who said they lean Republican said they supported the movement in the most recent survey. Eleven percent said they were opponents of the movement and 48 percent said they were neither supporters or opponents. By contrast, in 2010, 61 percent said they were supporters of the movement while just 5 percent said they were opponents. Thirty-four percent of Republicans and those who identify as leaning toward Republicans said they had no opinion.
Tillis in NC is another Tea Party lite candidate who had to move further to his right to win, along with a healthy cash injection from Rove&co. As was shown in the video earlier, and in his tenure as speaker for NC, he is pretty far right, calling for a 'Divide and Conquer' campaign against his own constituents who are on social programs. And he's the one the Republican establishment wanted?
The Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads spent north of $2 million propping up state House Speaker Thom Tillis when the candidate himself lacked the resources to go on statewide television. A few weeks ago, most Republicans in North Carolina were predicting that Tillis would not be able to break 40% of the vote, thereby forcing a July runoff election. But with the help of outside spending, a largely error-free campaign and the inability of his underfunded grassroots challengers to land a punch, Tillis surged late and cleared the runoff hurdle easily. Republicans are breathing easier, confident they have the candidate with the best shot to beat Democrat Hagan.
Charlotte, North Carolina (CNN) -- Republicans avoided a major headache on Tuesday night when Thom Tillis, the North Carolina house speaker and establishment favorite, won the Republican Senate nomination outright, dodging a protracted summer runoff fight against a grassroots-backed opponent.
With an assist from big-spending outside groups, Tillis dispatched his two main primary rivals, tea party-backed Greg Brannon and the Baptist pastor Mark Harris, with relative ease, clearing the 40% mark needed to skirt a July runoff election.
As expected, Rove didn't donate to a Tea Party lite candidate. He donated to an establishment-type candidate in order to defeat a Tea Party candidate.
Never mind that it's the Obama administration — not House or Senate candidates — drafting the rules. Even when Democrats try to distance themselves from Obama on the issue, Republicans say that's evidence that congressional Democrats are unable to rein in their party's out-of-control president.
We're not really going to pretend that democrats are anything resembling pro-energy, are we? Let's just say it like it is: democrats are generally anti-energy (particularly fossil fuels) except when it comes to solar and sometimes wind.
Well I think most would agree that Democrats want us to get off of fossil fuels (for damn good reason) and have mixed feelings on Natural gas (also for good reason), but I don't really get how supporting one of the fastest growing industries, and fully supporting 3 out of the top 5 sources for increased capacity in the US and the #1 fastest growing energy source world wide is somehow "anti-energy"...? I guess just because they are against increasing our reliance on the more dangerous energy choices you think they are more 'anti-energy' than people highlighted here?
(Forgive the source)
I don't think anyone is 'anti-energy' silly goose.
As expected, Rove didn't donate to a Tea Party lite candidate. He donated to an establishment-type candidate in order to defeat a Tea Party candidate.
Well without even a majority of Republican support, running a Tea Party candidate is not just a nightmare for national Republicans, but practically giving away the race.
And if it so happens the far right takes a win and puts in a Tea Party candidate, it only further alienates the vast majority of Americans who don't support the Tea Party and likely moves people from the no opinions column into the 30% and growing column of those who oppose the Tea Party.
Infighting within the GOP spilled out into the public on Thursday with a Republican House member bashing a libertarian-leaning colleague as "Al Qaeda’s best friend in the Congress."
The comments from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) were targeting Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who is facing a primary challenger and has been a vocal critic of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.
"He's been leading the charge and not telling the truth about [NSA surveillance policies]," Nunes said in an interview with Politico. “He’s been fanning the flames, and it gets to the point where my assessment is this is a guy willing to work with San Francisco Democrats to protect bait fish, and at the same time he’s Al Qaeda’s best friend in the Congress."
Nunes also said Amash is not a “serious member of Congress” and accused him of "playing games, and trying to be on the opposite side of Republicans."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) also went off about Amash to Politico.
"Once you get to know [Amash], and I know that district from being around Michigan for long enough, he’s completely out of line with these people," Rogers said. "He votes more with the Democrats than with the Republicans, and that’s not out of principle, that’s out of him branding himself as something different."
Never mind that it's the Obama administration — not House or Senate candidates — drafting the rules. Even when Democrats try to distance themselves from Obama on the issue, Republicans say that's evidence that congressional Democrats are unable to rein in their party's out-of-control president.
We're not really going to pretend that democrats are anything resembling pro-energy, are we? Let's just say it like it is: democrats are generally anti-energy (particularly fossil fuels) except when it comes to solar and sometimes wind.
Well I think most would agree that Democrats want us to get off of fossil fuels (for damn good reason) and have mixed feelings on Natural gas (also for good reason), but I don't really get how supporting one of the fastest growing industries, and fully supporting 3 out of the top 5 sources for increased capacity in the US and the #1 fastest growing energy source world wide is somehow "anti-energy"...? I guess just because they are against increasing our reliance on the more dangerous energy choices you think they are more 'anti-energy' than people highlighted here?
As expected, Rove didn't donate to a Tea Party lite candidate. He donated to an establishment-type candidate in order to defeat a Tea Party candidate.
Well without even a majority of Republican support, running a Tea Party candidate is not just a nightmare for national Republicans, but practically giving away the race.
And if it so happens the far right takes a win and puts in a Tea Party candidate, it only further alienates the vast majority of Americans who don't support the Tea Party and likely moves people from the no opinions column into the 30% and growing column of those who oppose the Tea Party.
Anti-energy is pretty harsh. I think that only applies to the extreme fringe that wants energy to be more expensive to drive down use. Calling Democrats more restrictive or less supportive of energy would be fair.
Maddow's 'pay a fine to use the sun' comments were pretty stupid.
A bill to end the government's bulk collection of telephone records got a unanimous go-ahead on Thursday from a second U.S. congressional committee, advancing the first legislative effort at surveillance reform since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed the program a year ago.
The House of Representatives Intelligence Committee voted unanimously by voice vote for the "USA Freedom Act," which would end the NSA’s practice of gathering information on calls made by millions of Americans and storing them for at least five years.
It would instead leave the records with telephone companies.
The panel's vote cleared the way for the measure to be considered by the full House of Representatives, a day after the House Judiciary Committee also approved the bill.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the intelligence panel's chairman, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., said they were pleased the measure had garnered strong support from both Republicans and Democrats.
"Enhancing privacy and civil liberties while protecting the operational capability of a critical counterterrorism tool, not pride of authorship, has always been our first and last priority," they said in a joint statement.
The bill, a compromise version of previously introduced legislation, remained several steps from becoming law. But its strong support by the two House committees improved its chances after a year of sharp divisions over the revelations by Snowden.
While civil-liberties advocates consider the House bill a big step forward, more consensus is needed before the Obama administration stops sweeping up Americans' phone records and holding them for five years.
one problem with electricity in the U.S. is that the grid is fragmented(good renewable source sites are out west and that power can't get to the east coast) , and of cousre there's no grid level storage capacity to actually use renewable sources, which are not always on, effectively.
On May 09 2014 09:08 oneofthem wrote: one problem with electricity in the U.S. is that the grid is fragmented(good renewable source sites are out west and that power can't get to the east coast) , and of cousre there's no grid level storage capacity to actually use renewable sources, which are not always on, effectively.
Sounds like a great National Project that should be spearheaded by private industry goosed by Public investment putting millions of people back to work and at good wages too.
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
On May 09 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: 'anti-energy' sounds ridiculous. It just seems like democrats seem to focus on promoting renewables. (which, as published in this http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html recent Stanford study, would actually be able to supply enough power for the US by 2050)
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
"Green collar" jobs are a crap ton safer too!
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
On May 09 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: 'anti-energy' sounds ridiculous. It just seems like democrats seem to focus on promoting renewables. (which, as published in this http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html recent Stanford study, would actually be able to supply enough power for the US by 2050)
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
Promoting clean energy is fine but there are real short run limits. We're not at the point where we can ignore fossil fuels and if you push hard against them you do become anti-energy at some point.
Edit: there are also some inequality issues with green jobs as well.
nuclear power is way better as a pure grid power solution, but with all the storage problems faced by 'green' energy sources that path might lead to more useful tech. no reason not to go big on nuclear though, abandon the silly and unsupported radioactivity risk models is all it takes.
EPT
