Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
In general, the premise that a fringe can push people out is a bit flawed... it's more that you have a platform that only the "fringe" or "radical" arm still identifies with, while it no longer appeals to people who are "moderate." They're not forced out by the fringe, per se... it's that the fringe still finds the home habitable, while the other end of the party thinks the one down the street better reflects what they want. But for argument's sake let's just accept that yes, moderate Republicans are identifying more and more with Democrats, Libertarians, and independents every day. I don't even know if that's debatable.

So now let's talk about if the concept of people being pushed out long-term is a real thing, and if there's actually a chance for the "downfall" or "collapse" of a party. According to my American Congress professor at ND, there is no scenario where a mass exodus from a party to another in our two-party system is more than temporary. In our two party system, a fringe cannot logically dominate the identity and platform of a party for an extended period of time. It's not sustainable on many levels.

The moderate Republicans may get "pushed out" in the short term to "independent" or "democrat"... but then what happens is as you push more and more towards one party being unpopular and the other being overly-popular, you get implicit redefinition of the party platform such that the population is once again close to "evenly" split.

Imagine that lunatics in the Republican party continue to force out moderates to the point where 67% of the country identifies as "democrat." At this point, you've effectively got people segmented 1/3 Republicans, 1/3 Democrat-moderate, and 1/3 Democrat-liberal. The "Republican" third would fail to have any clout, and simultaneously the Democrat blob would not be homogeneous enough. What happens every time in the history of two-party representative republican (not the party, the system) government is that as you approach this point the fringe loses their grip/influence, and the dwindling party gradually and seamlessly adopts a platform that is more popular. This is why in our two-party system there has also never been one perennially dominant party and the dominance is cyclical.

So let's talk for a second about a concrete example of an issue that is driving people away from the Republican party: gay rights. Once it gets to a point where a vast majority of people believe in certain gay rights, then it is no longer an issue where each party will pick a side. There will not be a "pro rights" party and a "anti rights party"... both parties will be "pro rights" in their platform. And once that issue comes off the table, a hypothetical gay people or pro-gay rights people driven away from Republicans because of that issue who agrees with whatever else is in the platform will gradually drift back to the party. And so on and so forth with every issue until all of the beliefs held by the "fringe" aren't part of the party's identity anymore.

Posting on here earlier I was thinking "man Lax had that awesome Congress class at ND that he's brought up before, he should get in here on this." I'm glad you did haha

IrishLax said:
This is why in our two-party system there has also never been one perennially dominant party and the dominance is cyclical.

Cyclical, certainly, but not scheduled. A cycle doesn't have a set length, only inevitability. If one is in Congress for thirty years, a cycle over the course of a century is kinda moot then isn't it?

IrishLax said:
According to my American Congress professor at ND, there is no scenario where a mass exodus from a party to another in our two-party system is more than temporary.

Temporary is of course a viewpoint. From a historical perspective, it's certainly temporary. From a lifetime or political career length, it can be permanent.

I mean couldn't I ask "are there scenarios where a mass exodus to another and back has happened in the course of two generations?
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This is getting to a key issue. Namely, the conservative world view considers a person's wealth/money/etc. to be their property. It can be taxed, but it is fundamentally that person's. And the government needs a damn good reason to trump that person's right to their property. OTOH, the liberal world view does not consider a person's wealth/money/etc. to really be that person's. Rather, it really belongs to society. Our society allows people to keep some portion of what they make, but it is essentially because society just chooses not to make that a greater demand from that person. It is a very fundamental difference.

What about people are getting from society?

Do business executives ever use government courts to enforce a contract?

Do they use energy infrastructure that had government funding?

Do they drive on public roads?

Do they employer people that have had public education paid for buy the government?

Government research has also paved the way for many breakthroughs like the internet.

It is not so much about taking it is we people determining what each of our fair cost to society is.

Do the rich perhaps pay a disproportional cost for what they receive? Perhaps. This argument against may have more validity if American workers pay had gone up with their productivity; it has not. The super rich have not shared in the wealth technology and increased productivity has brought to society so they should be paying a higher tax load.

Ironically a greater portion of federal taxes come from the rich than in days we had real heavy progressive taxation because the taxes were so high perhaps too high at certain income level it got to a point where it wasn't worth it so they kept their money in their company and paid more to their employees higher wages. So CEOs made 30 times the average worker not 500.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Cyclical, certainly, but not scheduled. A cycle doesn't have a set length, only inevitability. If one is in Congress for thirty years, a cycle over the course of a century is kinda moot then isn't it?

Absolutely. Although I'd imagine that in the information age we're going to see more rapid cycles as parties implicitly and explicitly adjust much more quickly to the belief set of the public, there's really no telling how the duration or magnitude of dominant cycles.

The overall economic state of the country among other factors sometimes have drastic effects on party affiliation that are completely independent of policy and relatively random. The "blame" phenomena is just... it's incalculable and unpredictable.

Temporary is of course a viewpoint. From a historical perspective, it's certainly temporary. From a lifetime or political career length, it can be permanent.

I mean couldn't I ask "are there scenarios where a mass exodus to another and back has happened in the course of two generations?

It's interesting because, being on a Notre Dame board here, one of the best permanent "exodus" examples is actually Catholics. Back in the generation of our grandparents, Catholics were overwhelmingly Democrats. At that time they were raised generally by first or second generation immigrants (if they weren't first or second generation themselves) and were predominantly working class. There was a lot of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment from the Protestant majority in the country, and Catholics also believed the "social justice" banner of the Blues. But over time, Catholic got assimilated into the larger "Christian" and the Irish got whitewashed into the white majority. Then factor in the polarizing nature of pro-life vs. pro-choice, and that single issue alone started pushing Catholics heavily to the Red.

So from the 1800s all the way to the 60s you had typically 80% to 90% of Catholics identifying as Democrats... the it rather rapidly changed to about a 50-50 split that we have today, and it's virtually unfathomable that the Democrat platform will ever entice the overwhelming majority of Catholics as it once.

Your point is extremely valid in that off the top of my head I can't think of a single demographic that has made a definitive exodus and then moved back. I really can't. I meant more to phrase it that "if there is a mass exodus of some sort, either changes are made to stem that exodus... or changes are made to appeal to another demographic... such that the gross number of people changing affiliations from Side A to Side B never swings too far in one direction before correcting."

I should also note that there IS a scenario in a two party system where a party actually dies... but I think it's near impossible in the entrenched system we have. Has happened before in a different era or different place. So hypothetically, the Repubs could get exterminated, but it would take utter incompetence the likes of which I can't even conceive for the RNC to let that happen.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
I definitely see what you are getting at. I just think at some point there may be the emergence of moderate party because both the Dems and Repub's have such unappealing brands right now. With all the turnover of Republicans recently (I mean McConnell is currently being primaried) I could totally see the Tea Partiers taking over the Republicans. Would they still call themselves Republicans? Maybe but philosophically they are different.

Yeah, I think if there is going to be a legitimate challenger to the Republicans, it would be some sort of Vulcan mind-meld between what's left of Republicans/moderates/whoever and Libertarians.

When you poll on what the Libertarian party actually claims to stand for, they seem to be in a really strong space. Their individual policy positions when taken as stand-alones, most are becoming more popular every year. It may come to a point where the Republicans simply do some rebranding... like...

comcast-introduces-xfinity.jpg


See? All the hate and disappointment you had for your Comcast services just went away. You now have Xfinity, which is clearly way better... nay, XFINITY times better. That's what the Republicans need.

return-to-ravnica-selesnya-artwork-rhox.jpg


Meet Republicanus, the warrior elephant come to smash puny donkey skulls.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I should clarify that the moderate Republicans are going to get pushed out by the fringe. Their obvious disdain for minorities, women, gays, etc. and their intolerance is only going to force moderates into the independent category. The party as a whole is shrinking . Look at what Arizona did recently. Once the fringe passed basically a hate bill the business community revolted. It lasted two days. The fringe is marching on....

Btw the democrats are shrinking too. I am interested to see what comes from it. The moderate voters will be the major voting bloc.

I disagree. Tell me if this makes sense. The last two pres candidates the GOP threw out there were moderate and lost. GOP guys like McCain, McConnell, etc are getting pushed out because they aren't communicating real convservative principles. Guys like Cruz, Rubio, and Paul are and they're trying to re-brand the party (much needed) after the past 8-10 years.

The fact that ocnservative women and minorities aren't covered in the media like those on the left is sad: Suzanna Martinez, Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Darrell Isa, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, I could list many more. The idea that the GOP is full of old, racist, white men is just inaccurate.

On the other side of the aisle, the Dems have been completely overrun by the coastal elites in NY and CA. There are no moderate Democrats.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
We weren't booming in the 80s GDP growth and the average unemployment rate were worse in the 80s than the 70s and the 90s. Not to mention in the 80s median income stopped growing with productivity.

Mmmmmmk. Keep telling yourself that. Get that from a class you took with Bill Ayers?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
This is getting to a key issue. Namely, the conservative world view considers a person's wealth/money/etc. to be their property. It can be taxed, but it is fundamentally that person's. And the government needs a damn good reason to trump that person's right to their property. OTOH, the liberal world view does not consider a person's wealth/money/etc. to really be that person's. Rather, it really belongs to society. Our society allows people to keep some portion of what they make, but it is essentially because society just chooses not to make that a greater demand from that person. It is a very fundamental difference.

Well said. The denial from the left that wealth is private property is at the core of so many of these issues. If people would spend 20 minutes reading Locke, the evils of excessive taxation would be abundantly clear.

I own my own self and my own body.
My self produces my labor.
Therefore, I own my own labor.
My labor produces fruits.
Therefore, I own the fruits of my labor.

Society claiming a RIGHT to the fruits of my labor is fundamentally the same as society making a claim on my very person.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Sorry boys on the left but saying the Republican Party is dead is just silly.

The Democrats have virtually no chance to retake the Hous and are in serious jeopardy of losing the Senate. At least according to the corporate media (I say it ain't over till it is over).

Yes it has a lot do to gerrymandering and population patterns and the fact the majority of the Senate seats up for election happen to be in GOP friendly states.

Yes the Democrats poll better on a lot issues.

Yes age and demographic trends look good..

However this ain't the time to be cocky on the left. We got a lot of work to do.

Let's not kid ourselves to think the Democrat Party has been so great. We got a lot of work to do on the left to undo the damage the Reagan revolution did to values of the Democratic Party to take it back to where it was during the Kennedy and LBJ years in terms of economic values.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah?

Recalling the Days When Dems Cut Taxes
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
Do the rich perhaps pay a disproportional cost for what they receive? Perhaps. This argument against may have more validity if American workers pay had gone up with their productivity; it has not.

Funny, you should mention this. An article in the WSJ from a couple days ago shows why this common argument is just false.

WSJ Article said:
"Many pundits, politicians and economists claim that wages have fallen behind productivity gains over the last generation. This "decoupling" explains allegedly stagnant (or in some versions of the story, declining) middle-class incomes and is held out as a crisis of the market economy.

This story, though, is built on an illusion. There is no great decoupling of worker pay from productivity. Nor have workers' incomes stagnated over the past four decades.

The illusion is the result of two mistakes that are routinely made when pay is compared with productivity. First, the value of fringe benefits—such as health insurance and pension contributions—is often excluded from calculations of worker pay. Because fringe benefits today make up a larger share of the typical employee's pay than they did 40 years ago (about 19% today compared with 10% back then), excluding them fosters the illusion that the workers' slice of the (bigger) pie is shrinking.

The second mistake is to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust workers' pay for inflation while using a different measure—for example the GDP deflator, which converts the current prices of all domestically produced final goods and services into constant dollars—to adjust the value of economic output for inflation. But as Harvard's Martin Feldstein noted in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper in 2008, it is misleading to use different deflators.

Different inflation adjustments give conflicting estimates of just how much the dollar's purchasing power has fallen. So to accurately compare the real (that is, inflation-adjusted) value of output to the real value of worker pay requires that these values both be calculated using the same price index.

Consider, for instance, that between 1970-2006 the CPI rose at an average annual rate of 4.3%, while the GDP deflator rose only 3.8%. Economists believe that such a difference arises because the CPI is especially prone to overestimate inflation. Therefore, much of the increase in the real purchasing power of workers' pay is mistakenly labeled by the CPI as mere inflation.

Mr. Feldstein and a number of other careful economists—including Richard Anderson of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank and Edward Lazear of the Stanford University Graduate School of Business—have compared worker pay (including the value of fringe benefits) with productivity using a consistent adjustment for inflation. They move in tandem. And in a study last year, João Paulo Pessoa and John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics compared worker compensation and productivity in both the United States and the United Kingdom from 1972-2010. There was no decoupling in either country. "
Donald Boudreaux and Liya Palagashvili: The Myth of the Great Wages 'Decoupling' - WSJ.com


Ironically a greater portion of federal taxes come from the rich than in days we had real heavy progressive taxation because the taxes were so high perhaps too high at certain income level it got to a point where it wasn't worth it so they kept their money in their company and paid more to their employees higher wages. So CEOs made 30 times the average worker not 500.

For this statement, the above article shows that your premise (employees previously received higher wages) is false. Moreover, there are several different dynamics at work here that your post seemingly ignores in its effort to draw a false casual link between these issues. (Before proceeding, I should state that I agree with your statement that the "rich" pay a greater portion of federal income taxes now and in the recent past as compared to much of the 20th century when the highest marginal rates were much higher than today. For example, JFK signed a tax reduction bill that reduced the highest marginal rate from ~90% to ~70%. And, of course, 70% is still crazy high compared to top marginal rate today.)

For example, why do you assume that if the company can't compensate its executive at a very high relative rate (or perhaps it is inefficient to highly compensate the executive because of the high marginal rates) that such funds would then be distributed to the workers? Your argument appears to make the false assumption that workers are essentially paid on what is not otherwise given the executive. That is not how market wage rates are determined. Rather, a company will instead do one or more of; retain the profits, provide dividends to shareholders, or use funds to make capital or research investments, acquisitions, stock repurchases or the like. Your argument doesn't work.
 
Last edited:

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
Well said. The denial from the left that wealth is private property is at the core of so many of these issues. If people would spend 20 minutes reading Locke, the evils of excessive taxation would be abundantly clear.

I own my own self and my own body.
My self produces my labor.
Therefore, I own my own labor.
My labor produces fruits.
Therefore, I own the fruits of my labor.

Society claiming a RIGHT to the fruits of my labor is fundamentally the same as society making a claim on my very person.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Yep. And there no longer is an individual. Moreover, when the individual no longer has a right to what he creates, many if not most other rights also fall along the way.
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
See? All the hate and disappointment you had for your Comcast services just went away. You now have Xfinity, which is clearly way better... nay, XFINITY times better. That's what the Republicans need.

return-to-ravnica-selesnya-artwork-rhox.jpg


Meet Republicanus, the warrior elephant come to smash puny donkey skulls.

Haha, that is amazing.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387

Oh Yeah!

I'll be posting a youtube video on this later.

The Kennedy tax cuts that LBJ pass were demand side tax cuts not supply side tax cuts. The Revenue Act of 1964 cut taxes of poor and middle class and raised taxes on the rich.

Wait? Didn't it cut the top rate from 91 percent down to 70 percent? Yes it did. However Kennedy was a rich business guy himself. He knew nobody paid a 91 percent tax rate. Why? Loopholes. So Kennedy's plan closed those loopholes by eliminating certain deductions and changing the capital gains taxes.

Nixon who unlike today's GOP was really worried about the deficit and didn't want to cut taxes. He accused Kennedy in the 1960 debate his plan would create huge deficit. Kennedy's response which I will be playing was that his tax plan was going to actually add $700 million to $1 billion dollars in new revenue (in 1960 money) through tax changes. Then we went on to say in his administration they would be spending more on education, more on building new hospitals, more on public housing, more on defense, as well as work towards a balanced budget.

Like I said I'll be posting the clip from the 1960 debate when Kennedy said this.

In 1965 tax collections went way up from 1964. Yes the economy improved but not enough to account for the amount of increase the government of tax revenues that occurred. Rich people paid more in taxes under Kennedy's plan. That is a fact.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
The video as promised:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hsy0tNFGYPg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I couldn't fine the original clip of just Kennedy apparently it aint there anymore but clip in talk show is directly from the 1960 debate I referred to.

I think this next clip puts to doubt any fantasy that Kennedy was some closet tea partier:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-ILqHSH4X_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
Even Obama seems to be losing faith in Obamacare
By Rick Newman
March 7, 2014 10:37 AM
The Exchange

If you’d like the government to change something about Obamacare, give the White House a ring. They’re in a flexible mood.

President Obama this week approved yet another delay to provisions in the Affordable Care Act, giving insurers until 2016 to sell a type of insurance policy that’s supposed to be banned under the health-reform law. The ban, which was supposed to begin this year, would prevent insurers from selling bare-bones plans that might be affordable but don’t abide by 10 “essential service rules” required under the new law.

When insurers began canceling such coverage last year, however, several million Americans were forced off plans they had chosen, with most alternatives being more expensive. That undermined Obama’s frequent claim that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” and turned into one of the most controversial elements of a law that hardly lacks detractors.

In November, Obama announced a one-year delay in the ban on “substandard” plans, as he used to call them. Now, extending the delay to 2016 will “provide consumers with choices so they can decide what is best,” the government says. Yet these limbo plans — temporarily allowed but bound to vanish at some point — defy the whole intent of Obamacare, as if the president is losing faith in his own plan. “This is a political move to minimize the impact of this as an argument against Democratic candidates,” says Sean Nicholson, a management professor at Cornell University.

Obama and his fellow Democrats certainly need some political cover as the November midterm elections approach. Support for the ACA has never risen above 45% and it actually weakened as the law went into effect. A recent Gallup poll shows 23% of Americans say they’ve been hurt by the law, while only 10% say they’ve been helped. That may overstate the ACA’s actual impact — since 16% of people said the ACA harmed them a year before it even went into effect — yet the negative impression alone is a big problem for Democrats who voted for the law and now must defend it as they run for reelection.

People with bare-bones insurance plans tend to be healthy enough to feel comfortable skimping on coverage. Yet it’s critical to get such people to enroll in the new federal program, so the premiums they pay will help offset the cost of older, sicker enrollees. If the ACA exempted everybody who wanted a cheap, limited plan, it could thwart the whole program, since it would include too many costly patients and premiums would be prohibitively high.

Obama now seems to be backing off one of the key planks of the whole reform effort. Yet many of the people “allowed” to keep a substandard plan will be forced to enroll in Obamacare anyway. The pressure, however, comes from three sources other than the federal government:

States. Insurance commissioners in each state must explicitly allow insurers to offer the limbo policies, and only about half of the states have said they will. So people in many states won’t be able to get a limbo plan even though Obama has said they can.

Insurers. Insurance companies spent three years preparing for the onset of Obamacare, including the ban on bare-bones plans. While reinstating old policies might earn them a few extra bucks, it’s also a hassle to cancel policies, then reinstate them only to cancel them again in a couple of years. “I would expect insurers that have already decided not to offer these are not going to change their minds in great numbers,” says Tim Jost, an expert on health law at Washington & Lee University law school.

Healthcare consumers. Bare-bones plans are the type consumers drop most frequently, as they get new jobs that offer better coverage, go onto a spouse’s plan or simply drop their insurance. Since insurers are only allowed to carry over plans that were offered in 2013 — not offer new ones — turnover alone should quickly reduce the number of people who have such plans, diminishing the importance of limbo plans.

The change means Democrats will be able to say Obamacare really does let you keep your insurance plan (wink, wink). But Jost says even that strategy carries risks. “By delaying it until 2016, that means some people might get cancellation notices right before the next presidential election," he says. “That doesn’t seem very smart.”

Of course, Obama could always extend the deadline.

Even Obama seems to be losing faith in Obamacare | The Exchange - Yahoo Finance
 

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
I think this next clip puts to doubt any fantasy that Kennedy was some closet tea partier:

Here's a JFK quote for you...

The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950

I think that this sounds more tea party-ish than nut-job leftist. A quote like this shows that he would not be welcome in the current radical Democratic party where there is no tolerance for people who disagree with them.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Here's a JFK quote for you...

The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950

I think that this sounds more tea party-ish than nut-job leftist. A quote like this shows that he would not be welcome in the current radical Democratic party where there is no tolerance for people who disagree with them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with progressive taxation.

I agree that federalism has gotten out of hand. I think for a lot of things should be left to the states.

I also think some things make sense to be funded federally but still be state administered. Personally I think that is what should have been on healthcare. The healthcare industrial complex and insurance companies totally suck (I know I am in healthcare) so something needs to be done. I think makes sense though for the government to give block grant type funding based on regional cost and population to states to each put towards designing there own plan to address the healthcare crisis.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
Here's a JFK quote for you...

The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950

I think that this sounds more tea party-ish than nut-job leftist. A quote like this shows that he would not be welcome in the current radical Democratic party where there is no tolerance for people who disagree with them.

I doubt the sanctity of marriage crowd would embrace a guy that has probably porked more women than Bill Clinton
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Guys...

I am probably just going to miss off both sides but what the hell, right?

Not everyone, but some on here seem to be viewing the other side as only having all the views of the furthest wings of their party. This along with immediately jumping on statements and clauses and dragging them out to mean far more than what was intended seems to be dragging this conversation into uglier and more accusatory territory...somewhat akin to DC's most published riffs. Statistically speaking most of us would not fall into the far wings of our parties...so please try to keep that in mind.

I am not immune myself, but most of my posts here are articles and political cartoons. I do post opinion as well and have gone down the rabbit hole a bit but I do try to pull back.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
So we have Comcast and Time Warner who want to merge.

Now we got the two largest Supermarket grocery chains Safeway and Albertsons wanting to merge.

Will the antitrust regulators do their jobs? Or are we gonna get near monopoly market places?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
So we have Comcast and Time Warner who want to merge.

Now we got the two largest Supermarket grocery chains Safeway and Albertsons wanting to merge.

Will the antitrust regulators do their jobs? Or are we gonna get near monopoly market places?

I've never even heard of Safeway nor Albertsons. Grocery is largely a regional business. Ever heard of Publix, Meijer, Martin's, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Stop and Shop, etc. etc.? You only need a handful of firms for a competitive market and neither the grocery industry nor cable television are anywhere close to monopoly.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I've never even heard of Safeway nor Albertsons. Grocery is largely a regional business. Ever heard of Publix, Meijer, Martin's, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Stop and Shop, etc. etc.? You only need a handful of firms for a competitive market and neither the grocery industry nor cable television are anywhere close to monopoly.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

You won't find an stores named Albertsons or Safeway. They are parent companies. In IL Jewel is the name of Abertsons' owned chain, and Dominicks is the name of the Safeway chain. I believe Martin's Supermarket is Albertsons or Safeway but don't take that to the bank. I have zero doubt Safeway and Albertson own one of the chains you mentioned. It is not Meijer.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Here in the hood Uncle Jemima's Corner Store was just bought out by Seven 11.... Market cornering fuckers...
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
FYI. All time record highs of Americans having to take public transport.

Also, the number of uninsured Americans is higher now than 2008
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
FYI. All time record highs of Americans having to take public transport.

I hope you're not serious. This is an enormous achievement for urban policy on an issue that's essential for sustainability, and you've found a way to spin it as negative?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I hope you're not serious. This is an enormous achievement for urban policy on an issue that's essential for sustainability, and you've found a way to spin it as negative?

You think it's a good thing that people are too poor to buy cars?
 

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
You think it's a good thing that people are too poor to buy cars?

New car sales were 15.6 million last year. The first time since 2007 the industry reached 15 million. So far this year, new car sales have been flat but most of that is being credited for the larger than expected winter season. We should know more in the coming two months or so as to whether 2014 will be a good year or not.

As far as mass transit, I am all for anything that helps... even though I work in the auto industry.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
New car sales were 15.6 million last year. The first time since 2007 the industry reached 15 million. So far this year, new car sales have been flat but most of that is being credited for the larger than expected winter season. We should know more in the coming two months or so as to whether 2014 will be a good year or not.

As far as mass transit, I am all for anything that helps... even though I work in the auto industry.

Average age of cars is pretty high right now, replacement cycle should drive strong car sales for some time.

As for the mass transit crowd, I've known plenty of people living in urban areas that were liberated by not owning a car and dealing with parking (Chicago area in particular). Funny thing though, the minute they have kids they move out of the bar areas and into suburbs to buy minivans and shit. No one in their right mind wants to raise kids in the city. They may continue to use mass transit but it is a logical choice when you can drive downtown in 3-4 hours or take a half hour train ride. Small market areas like Raleigh and Milwaukee smoke the choo-choo weed and the viability falls flat on its face because there just isn't the density, centralized business district or bad enough traffic to create an alternative that would actually be used.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
What are the 10 "essential" benefits of ACA that are being waived to 2016? From Forbes:

Essential Health Benefits

The Affordable Care Act requires that non-grandfathered health plans (those that were not in existence on March 23, 2010) offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the new Health Insurance Marketplace (or “Exchange”), cover a core package of healthcare services known as Essential Health Benefits. These plans must cover – at a minimum – the following 10 general categories:

Ambulatory patient services – Care you receive without being admitted to a hospital, such as at a doctor’s office, clinic or same-day (“outpatient”) surgery center. Also included in this category are home health services and hospice care (note: some plans may limit coverage to no more than 45 days).

Emergency services – Care you receive for conditions that could lead to serious disability or death if not immediately treated, such as accidents or sudden illness. Typically, this is a trip to the emergency room, and includes transport by ambulance. You cannot be penalized for going out-of-network or for not having prior authorization.

Hospitalization – Care you receive as a hospital patient, including care from doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, laboratory and other tests, medications you receive during your hospital stay, and room and board. Hospitalization coverage also includes surgeries, transplants and care received in a skilled nursing facility, such as a nursing home that specializes in the care of the elderly (note: some plans may limit skilled nursing facility coverage to no more than 45 days).

Laboratory services – Testing provided to help a doctor diagnose an injury, illness or condition, or to monitor the effectiveness of a particular treatment. Some preventive screenings, such as breast cancer screenings and prostrate exams, are provided free of charge.

Maternity and newborn care – Care that women receive during pregnancy (prenatal care), throughout labor, delivery and post-delivery, and care for newborn babies.


Mental health services and addiction treatment – Inpatient and outpatient care provided to evaluate, diagnose and treat a mental health condition or substance abuse disorder (note: some plans may limit coverage to 20 days each year).

Rehabilitative Services and devices – Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices to help you gain or recover mental and physical skills lost to injury, disability or a chronic condition. Plans have to provide 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab.

Pediatric Services – Care provided to infants and children, including well-child visits and recommended vaccines and immunizations. Dental and vision care must be offered to children younger than 19. This includes two routine dental exams, an eye exam and corrective lenses each year.

Prescription drugs – Medications that are prescribed by a doctor to treat an illness or condition. Examples include prescription antibiotics to treat an infection or medication used to treat an ongoing condition, such as high cholesterol. At least one prescription drug must be covered for each category and classification of federally approved drugs.

Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease treatment – Preventive care, such as physicals, immunizations and cancer screenings designed to prevent or detect certain medical conditions. Also, care for chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes.

Essential Health Benefits Under The Affordable Care Act - Forbes


I bolded some of the ones that stand out as significant expansions for low cost policies
 
Top