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

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I whole-heartedly disagree. It is in no-way overblown. Because the next step, and it will be taken, is the striking down of the individual limit completely.

You are also negating the impacts to states and districts that do not have a lot of money. Its not just national elections. Money is very important at the local and state level.

If nothing else, local and state elections determne seats in the US House by determining how districts are drawn to maximize the impact of voting in support of the party in power. Money in these races has typically been harder to come by and means a lot.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I whole-heartedly disagree. It is in no-way overblown. Because the next step, and it will be taken, is the striking down of the individual limit completely.

You are also negating the impacts to states and districts that do not have a lot of money. Its not just national elections. Money is very important at the local and state level.

Yea I'm not sure it is overblown compared to what was already happening post Citizens United. However McCutcheon vs FEC on top of Citizens United vs the FEC is going to corrupt our democracy. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party will serve there constituents like they should.

I'm not sure how anyone could not realize that money is the source of the vast majority of government corruption so I don't see how anyone could justify that the Supreme Courts decisions have made us a better country. Not that we where in such a great position prior to the cases but we need to go forward with campaign finance reform not roll back to 1900.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Anyone got any opinions on judicial review and striking down laws?

Judicial review does not show up in the Constitution.

To me it seems judicial review and legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. I'm not playing favorites on this. Rode v Wade was wrong, abortion should be a legislative matter probably left to each state not a legal matter. Striking down DOMA was wrong. The law sucked but it should be up to Congress to change it.

We don't a democracy because of judicial activism we have a constitutional monarchy.

As far as unconstitutional laws are concerned I'm siding with Jefferson on the matter:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
 
Last edited:

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans

The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans

Barack Obama declared victory this week as the deadline to avoid the penalty for the individual mandate to carry health insurance passed on Monday. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” the President insisted as he announced that 7.1 million people had enrolled in private insurance through Obamacare. “The debate over repealing this law is over.”

Consider that presidential wish casting in a midterm cycle in which Democrats will have to constantly defend their support for the unpopular law. As Jimmy Fallon pointed out later the same evening, the numbers were neither impressive nor reliable. “It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory,” Fallon told his laughing audience, “fine people if they don’t do it — and keep extending the deadline for months.”

The public has hardly been in a celebratory or a laughing mood. Polls show that the American public remains as opposed to the ACA as ever, with 55 percent of Quinnipiac respondents disapproving of the law. Only 39 percent approve of Obama’s handling of health care policy, which has until recently been a Democratic Party strength. For that matter, Obama only gets a 40 percent approval rating on the economy and jobs, to which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the debate to turn now that the Obamacare debate “is over.”

Pelosi and Obama may want to be careful with that wish casting, because the two debates are now closely related. A new study from the American Health Policy Institute – recently launched by former Bush administration Deputy Secretary of HHS Tevi Troy – shows that large employers expect to face steep compliance costs, starting in the fall. Their cost estimates range between $4,800 and $5,900 per employee over the next decade. The total cost to large employers over the next decade will run between $151 billion and $186 billion, according to the 100 companies surveyed by AHPI that employ 10,000 or more people.

That doesn’t include additional price increases from insurers attempting to cover bad bets in their 2014 premium rates after the first round of Obamacare. "I do think that it's likely premium rate shocks are coming,” CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield CEO Chet Burrell told Reuters. “I think they begin to make themselves at least partially known in 2015 and fully known in 2016.” The consensus is that premiums will rise by double-digit percentages next year from their already-inflated levels for 2014 coverage.

The Obama administration unilaterally delayed a portion of the employer mandate, but it still takes effect for those employing more than 200 workers at the beginning of January 2015. Large employers have to budget as soon as this summer to deal with those costs. Most of them will start scaling down their so-called “Cadillac” health care plans to avoid the taxes those will accrue by 2016, getting ahead of the curve.

Many may choose to give up on offering health insurance at all. The data from HHS after the passage of Obamacare showed that the Obama administration expected as many as 93 million Americans to be thrown out of their existing coverage, with employers opting to either scale down or get out, paying the fine instead.

Either way, the ACA imposes massive costs on employers, whether those come in the form of fines, higher premiums, red tape, or a combination of all three. Businesses that have new and massive costs imposed on them by regulatory changes no longer can use that capital for investment, risk-taking, and expansion. That means fewer new jobs for Americans, and fewer opportunities to move up the economic ladder as well.

Now, perhaps this would make sense if the program that plans to impose all these costs actually did what Democrats promised it would do – insure the uninsured. However, the numbers offered up by Obama on Tuesday fall very far short of the numbers his administration used to argue that a systemic overhaul was needed to address “the fierce urgency of now” with the uninsured, which the LA Times recalls as between 45-48 million.

In fact, it’s not clear at all that the so-called enrollments hailed on April Fools Day offer a break-even point with the uninsured the ACA created. Those numbers are estimated at five to six million Americans in the individual market, many of whom now pay higher premiums and have to clear higher deductibles as the cost of buying more insurance coverage than they believed they needed in the first place.

So how many of these seven-million-plus claimed by Obama actually started off without any insurance at all? The Times reported that from an unpublished Rand Corporation study that of the six million who signed up through Obamacare exchanges for private insurance, a third of those had no insurance previous to the rollout. That would come to 4.4 percent of the low end of the LA Times estimate, if that number represented actual enrollments – but it doesn’t.

The Daily Mail’s David Martosko reports that the same Rand study shows that only 53 percent of those previously uninsured have actually paid premiums for their selection. The Rand estimate of the newly covered comes just short of 859,000 – or just 1.9 percent of the total number of uninsured that Democrats insisted had to be helped through a costly and disruptive overhaul of the health-insurance industry. Even adding in the estimated six million added to Medicaid – most of whom would have qualified without Obamacare – the first pass only accounts for 15 percent of the problem, as defined by Obama and his fellow Democrats in 2009-10.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html

I couldn't get the last paragraph to post for some reason. I kept getting a Server Error. To read it, just click on the link above.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
Anyone got any opinions on judicial review and striking down laws?

Judicial review does not show up in the Constitution.

To me it seems judicial review and legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. I'm not playing favorites on this. Rode v Wade was wrong, abortion should be a legislative matter probably left to each state not a legal matter. Striking down DOMA was wrong. The law sucked but it should be up to Congress to change it.

We don't a democracy because of judicial activism we have a constitutional monarchy.

As far as unconstitutional laws are concerned I'm siding with Jefferson on the matter:

I think this is a really hard question. I wish I had more time to write a more in-depth answer.

There is no doubt that judicial review takes some of the power away from the people. Courts paternalistically tell the legislature, the representatives of the people, what it may and may not do. Is that consistent with our Founding principles?

On the other hand, don't we have a Bill of Rights precisely for the purpose of protecting individuals from government, regardless of the fact that government derives its power from the people? If we left it to the normal mechanisms of legislative government to protect individual liberty, individuals would sometimes be overrun by the tyranny of the majority.

As for your Jefferson quote, I think he makes a fair point, but I think it's also true that, in 2014, we have to admit something that Jefferson and the Founders couldn't have known: education does not really inform the discretion of the people, not fundamentally. Nowadays, we understand ideology. We understand that each of us views the world through different prisms, accepting ideas that "call out" to us and rejecting ideas that don't. Too often, education doesn't inform the discretion of the people; it just reproduces people with certain proclivities. Historically, we have sometimes needed judicial review to protect some minority faction that's been unable to protect itself through majoritarian politics that, it may be, no amount of education could have changed, without the intervention of as powerful a voice as the judiciary.

So I guess I'm conflicted on the topic, but ultimately I think judicial review, while subject to abuse, is basically good for the country.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I think this is a really hard question. I wish I had more time to write a more in-depth answer.

There is no doubt that judicial review takes some of the power away from the people. Courts paternalistically tell the legislature, the representatives of the people, what it may and may not do. Is that consistent with our Founding principles?

On the other hand, don't we have a Bill of Rights precisely for the purpose of protecting individuals from government, regardless of the fact that government derives its power from the people? If we left it to the normal mechanisms of legislative government to protect individual liberty, individuals would sometimes be overrun by the tyranny of the majority.

As for your Jefferson quote, I think he makes a fair point, but I think it's also true that, in 2014, we have to admit something that Jefferson and the Founders couldn't have known: education does not really inform the discretion of the people, not fundamentally. Nowadays, we understand ideology. We understand that each of us views the world through different prisms, accepting ideas that "call out" to us and rejecting ideas that don't. Too often, education doesn't inform the discretion of the people; it just reproduces people with certain proclivities. Historically, we have sometimes needed judicial review to protect some minority faction that's been unable to protect itself through majoritarian politics that, it may be, no amount of education could have changed, without the intervention of as powerful a voice as the judiciary.

So I guess I'm conflicted on the topic, but ultimately I think judicial review, while subject to abuse, is basically good for the country.

Not only good, but absolutely necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the minority from being legislated away by the majority. In fact, the Republican party, which prides itself on protecting the individual from too much federal intervention in their daily lives, is often the party guilty of passing the legislation that restricts individual freedom the most. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments were added to the constitution for a reason.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
Not only good, but absolutely necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the minority from being legislated away by the majority. In fact, the Republican party, which prides itself on protecting the individual from too much federal intervention in their daily lives, is often the party guilty of passing the legislation that restricts individual freedom the most. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments were added to the constitution for a reason.

Fact. Right.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387

I actually think they ought to give Congress a raise but also means test it. Albeit they have not done much good lately but I look at what they make and the importance of what they do relative to other professions from that stand point I think they are underpaid.

That being said if you are already wealthy and can basically live off investments you shouldn't be paid at all. On the other hand if you are a man or woman of humble origins with out alot of wealth can kind of got elected through a grass roots campaign I can see paying them a little more.


I know alot of Republicans love means testing. I say lets experiment and try it for Congress.

They also ought to outlaw committee participation if you have active business ties to that community. You if are Steve Fincher from Tennessee and you make money from agriculture you shouldn't be on the House Agricultural Community so you can help right a farm bill giving you $3 million dollars in farm subsidies. Just my opinion.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
They also ought to outlaw committee participation if you have active business ties to that community. You if are Steve Fincher from Tennessee and you make money from agriculture you shouldn't be on the House Agricultural Community so you can help right a farm bill giving you $3 million dollars in farm subsidies. Just my opinion.

The primary issue I envision with that is then you potentially have committees of people with no clue about, to use your example, agriculture. Conflict of interest is a big deal, for sure. And I appreciate your point. But personally I'd rather have people with experience/knowledge on committees and risk the pork/COI than have a bunch of people with no clue how an industry functions shaping policy for it.

As for congressional pay, I personally think it should be an unpaid volunteer position. Would help do away with career politicians. I'd also love term limits, but those were struck down as unconstitutional. Career politicians, IMO, are the single biggest contributing factor to why congress fails to function as intended. It's all about scoreboards and Ws instead of legislating what you actually believe is the best policy for your constituents/the country. When you read literature on congress that features interviews with staffers/ex-reps, they talk about how its commonplace that they are whipped into line by the party to vote against what their constituents want or what they believe. Parties will threaten to withhold funding, put a primary challenger, etc. if they don't vote as directed.

Joe Donnelly is a great example of this kind of party > constituents politics. ND grad, he defeated an incumbent Republican in 2006 to enter the House in Indaina's 2nd. While there, he won re-election in 2008 by a landslide. Coming up to the 2010 midterms, he had serious reservations about the ACA. For right or wrong, it was wildly unpopular among his constituents. He did not want to vote for it for that reason among other specific reservations about the bill. He got whipped into line HARD. One of the kids in my American Congress class was an intern for him, and said the DCCC, DNC, etc. were using insane amounts of political pressure on Donnelly and others to get them to support the bill. Donnelly said straight up to the party that if he voted for the bill it'd be a death sentence in the next election, plus he didn't like parts of it. They came back and said if he DIDN'T vote for the bill it would be a death sentence, because they weren't giving him a dime of funding or support for re-election if he didn't get in line. By his account the phone conversation got HEATED with Donnelly telling them to piss off. Then they took a second to consider his options, and ultimately decided to fall in line in return for some promises.

In the 2010 midterm, he narrowly won a third term in the House with 48% of the vote after voting for the ACA. He received approximately 20% less popular vote than he received in 2008 because his voting wasn't in line with the expressed desires of his district, but he did just enough to eek out a victory with the financial and political support of the party behind him.

Then he got nominated for the Senate in 2012 and won. Since becoming US Senator, he has expressed a desire for tweaks to the ACA... sort of coming full circle to that watershed moment in 2010. He had to make a strategic decision, and was rewarded handsomely for siding with the party over his constituents/personal reservations. On one hand, it keeps him in power where he can work towards what he believes in as well as serving the state of Indiana. He can't do that if he isn't in office. On the other hand, how can someone vote on their conscience and/or expressed belief of constituents if every time it falls out of line with the party on a major issue they get whipped back in line by threats/incentives? I imagine examples like this happen on both sides with virtually every representative. For every Donnelly that was whipped into voting for the ACA, was there a Republican that was whipped into voting it down? Hard to really know, and it's disappointing that $$$ and party support really trumps all for anyone that wishes to be a career politician.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
A concern I have is if you make it an unpaid volunteer position wouldn't the only be that are able to run be one percenters.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
A concern I have is if you make it an unpaid volunteer position wouldn't the only be that are able to run be one percenters.

Indeed, that is a huge issue. You'd be relegated to the retired or the wealthy as candidates if you made it entirely unpaid volunteer.

Another interesting idea is incentivizing the pay based on "performance." So you start with a low base pay (say, a typical teacher's salary as well all know they do more actual good/work than your average rep) and then give bonuses hypothetically scaled off of things like:
-Budget surplus
-Unemployment %
-GDP growth
-Cleanliness of the air we breath
-Etc.

Would never happen, but it sure as hell would work. Imagine if reps had a $500k bonus on the table for balancing the budget... shit would get done in a hurry.

The most off the wall suggestion ever brought up in class... which I thought was rather interesting... was to do the House like jury duty. Random person plucked from a district every two years, option to be re-elected for a second term if they serve their constituents well. If not, new person chosen at random. Max two terms for any house rep. Substantially increase the size of the house and subdivide current districts into much smaller districts. Completely eliminates gerrymandering and a host of the other issues, but brings up some larger ones (especially with laws originating in the House). But... #yolo.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Indeed, that is a huge issue. You'd be relegated to the retired or the wealthy as candidates if you made it entirely unpaid volunteer.

Another interesting idea is incentivizing the pay based on "performance." So you start with a low base pay (say, a typical teacher's salary as well all know they do more actual good/work than your average rep) and then give bonuses hypothetically scaled off of things like:
-Budget surplus
-Unemployment %
-GDP growth
-Cleanliness of the air we breath
-Etc.

Would never happen, but it sure as hell would work. Imagine if reps had a $500k bonus on the table for balancing the budget... shit would get done in a hurry.

The most off the wall suggestion ever brought up in class... which I thought was rather interesting... was to do the House like jury duty. Random person plucked from a district every two years, option to be re-elected for a second term if they serve their constituents well. If not, new person chosen at random. Max two terms for any house rep. Substantially increase the size of the house and subdivide current districts into much smaller districts. Completely eliminates gerrymandering and a host of the other issues, but brings up some larger ones (especially with laws originating in the House). But... #yolo.

I like the concept. Reps
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Indeed, that is a huge issue. You'd be relegated to the retired or the wealthy as candidates if you made it entirely unpaid volunteer.

Another interesting idea is incentivizing the pay based on "performance." So you start with a low base pay (say, a typical teacher's salary as well all know they do more actual good/work than your average rep) and then give bonuses hypothetically scaled off of things like:
-Budget surplus
-Unemployment %
-GDP growth
-Cleanliness of the air we breath
-Etc.


Would never happen, but it sure as hell would work. Imagine if reps had a $500k bonus on the table for balancing the budget... shit would get done in a hurry.

The most off the wall suggestion ever brought up in class... which I thought was rather interesting... was to do the House like jury duty. Random person plucked from a district every two years, option to be re-elected for a second term if they serve their constituents well. If not, new person chosen at random. Max two terms for any house rep. Substantially increase the size of the house and subdivide current districts into much smaller districts. Completely eliminates gerrymandering and a host of the other issues, but brings up some larger ones (especially with laws originating in the House). But... #yolo.


I like this idea, but we would have to make the incentives comparable to those of teachers.

For example, teachers are expected to have 100% of their students meet all the objectives at each grade level with no exceptions. Our legislature should be required to provide the work force with 100% employment. If you fail to meet the 100% number you are subject to termination, just like teachers.

Our teachers are also responsible for the behavior of those who choose to disobey their classroom rules. Our congressmen should be responsible for those who choose to break the laws that congress passes.

Our teachers must have everything done in a timely fashion or work evenings, weekends, or summers to make sure things get done on time. No excuses are accepted for not having lesson plans, report cards, attendance records, etc. done on time. Nothing less should be expected of our congressmen. If you can't agree on a compromise to pass needed legislation, you will have to stay in the chamber until your differences get worked out.

Our teachers have to follow the directives of the school superintendent without question, even if his directives have no chance of gaining public approval or when the teachers don't agree with what he is proposing or demanding. If our congress was required to act like teachers, they wouldn't be questioning the president's agenda (not if they wanted to keep their jobs).

On second thought, I don't want our legislature treated like teachers. I don't want teachers treated that way either, but (at least in Michigan) that's the way they are treated.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'd also love term limits, but those were struck down as unconstitutional. Career politicians, IMO, are the single biggest contributing factor to why congress fails to function as intended. It's all about scoreboards and Ws instead of legislating what you actually believe is the best policy for your constituents/the country. When you read literature on congress that features interviews with staffers/ex-reps, they talk about how its commonplace that they are whipped into line by the party to vote against what their constituents want or what they believe. Parties will threaten to withhold funding, put a primary challenger, etc. if they don't vote as directed.

We need a constitutional amendment.

Joe Donnelly is a great example of this kind of party > constituents politics. ND grad, he defeated an incumbent Republican in 2006 to enter the House in Indaina's 2nd. While there, he won re-election in 2008 by a landslide. Coming up to the 2010 midterms, he had serious reservations about the ACA. For right or wrong, it was wildly unpopular among his constituents. He did not want to vote for it for that reason among other specific reservations about the bill. He got whipped into line HARD. One of the kids in my American Congress class was an intern for him, and said the DCCC, DNC, etc. were using insane amounts of political pressure on Donnelly and others to get them to support the bill. Donnelly said straight up to the party that if he voted for the bill it'd be a death sentence in the next election, plus he didn't like parts of it. They came back and said if he DIDN'T vote for the bill it would be a death sentence, because they weren't giving him a dime of funding or support for re-election if he didn't get in line. By his account the phone conversation got HEATED with Donnelly telling them to piss off. Then they took a second to consider his options, and ultimately decided to fall in line in return for some promises.

In the 2010 midterm, he narrowly won a third term in the House with 48% of the vote after voting for the ACA. He received approximately 20% less popular vote than he received in 2008 because his voting wasn't in line with the expressed desires of his district, but he did just enough to eek out a victory with the financial and political support of the party behind him.

Then he got nominated for the Senate in 2012 and won. Since becoming US Senator, he has expressed a desire for tweaks to the ACA... sort of coming full circle to that watershed moment in 2010. He had to make a strategic decision, and was rewarded handsomely for siding with the party over his constituents/personal reservations. On one hand, it keeps him in power where he can work towards what he believes in as well as serving the state of Indiana. He can't do that if he isn't in office. On the other hand, how can someone vote on their conscience and/or expressed belief of constituents if every time it falls out of line with the party on a major issue they get whipped back in line by threats/incentives? I imagine examples like this happen on both sides with virtually every representative. For every Donnelly that was whipped into voting for the ACA, was there a Republican that was whipped into voting it down? Hard to really know, and it's disappointing that $$$ and party support really trumps all for anyone that wishes to be a career politician.

It's so sad that in this day and age--with the internet making it so easy (and cheap) to communicate with people--that money is the biggest issue in elections.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
I like this idea, but we would have to make the incentives comparable to those of teachers.

For example, teachers are expected to have 100% of their students meet all the objectives at each grade level with no exceptions. Our legislature should be required to provide the work force with 100% employment. If you fail to meet the 100% number you are subject to termination, just like teachers.

I get what you're saying but 100% employment is impossible. Getting close to that is extremely unhealthy for the economy and wages. Like awful.

"Of those given much, much is expected."
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I like this idea, but we would have to make the incentives comparable to those of teachers.

For example, teachers are expected to have 100% of their students meet all the objectives at each grade level with no exceptions. Our legislature should be required to provide the work force with 100% employment. If you fail to meet the 100% number you are subject to termination, just like teachers.

Our teachers are also responsible for the behavior of those who choose to disobey their classroom rules. Our congressmen should be responsible for those who choose to break the laws that congress passes.

Our teachers must have everything done in a timely fashion or work evenings, weekends, or summers to make sure things get done on time. No excuses are accepted for not having lesson plans, report cards, attendance records, etc. done on time. Nothing less should be expected of our congressmen. If you can't agree on a compromise to pass needed legislation, you will have to stay in the chamber until your differences get worked out.

Our teachers have to follow the directives of the school superintendent without question, even if his directives have no chance of gaining public approval or when the teachers don't agree with what he is proposing or demanding. If our congress was required to act like teachers, they wouldn't be questioning the president's agenda (not if they wanted to keep their jobs).

On second thought, I don't want our legislature treated like teachers. I don't want teachers treated that way either, but (at least in Michigan) that's the way they are treated.

This is looney bin stuff.

EDIT: Nevermind, I saw the last line. I guess I should have figured you were a teacher and that this was subtle complaining.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
This has nothing to do with fixing Congress, but for the life of me I can't understand why an elected member of Congress knows less about what is happening in some national agencies than the leaders of said agencies do. When (hero) Edward Snowden came forward, one of the biggest WTF realizations was that there are 100,000+ people just like him with access to that sort of info...but not Congress. No, instead Congress was in the dark because of "national security." That doesn't add up.

Also, for something like the NSA's unwarranted searching of US phone records to be deemed unconstitutional, a citizen must bring forward a case...how can a citizen do that to a classified program?

We need all 535 members of Congress to have access classified data, and members of Congress should have a shortcut directly to courts to bring forward elements of the federal government that they think could be unconstitutional. A guy like Rand Paul should be able to go on a witch hunt through the NSA, FBI, etc and audit their procedures; he is an elected official and they aren't.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I get what you're saying but 100% employment is impossible. Getting close to that is extremely unhealthy for the economy and wages. Like awful.

"Of those given much, much is expected."

Yea I think the CBO regarded full employment as an unemployment of 5.0 percent or less if I recall. You won't get 100 percent. A great economy might get 4 percent.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
The US is too big for 1 big universal single payer to EVER work efficiently.

That's an assumption. I agree with it for the time being, but we simply don't know.

I am in favor of universal catastrophic care though. Isn't most cancer(/medical?) research publicly funded anyway? No one should go broke because they got cancer.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
What do you all think about this Hobby Lobby dealio? I personally think it's bullshit for a corporation to claim a religious exemption. If you, Mr. Craft Store want to claim religious exemptions, go for it. But don't try for form a corporation for protections from liability and think you can fuck society with your religious crap.

I also think it's faaaaaaar beyond bullshit that Hobby Lobby can claim a religious exemption because of contraceptives while their shitty craft store supplies are made in China, one of the worst human rights abusers in the world and by far the largest abortion-providing country in the world thanks to their one-child policy. If Hobby Lobby is what Christianity is, I'll have something else.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
FYI, the individual limit was already specifically upheld in Buckley.

Rendered in 1976. This SCOTUS chose not to address it in McCutcheon. That does not mean it can't or won't be revisited if someone can make a case for free speech being hindered. The argument between contributions, expenditures and the appearance of quid pro quo would have to be made. The McCutcheon decision actually opened up ways to argue this and you can see in Robert's opinion that it is obvious that will be the next step.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
What do you all think about this Hobby Lobby dealio? I personally think it's bullshit for a corporation to claim a religious exemption. If you, Mr. Craft Store want to claim religious exemptions, go for it. But don't try for form a corporation for protections from liability and think you can fuck society with your religious crap.

I also think it's faaaaaaar beyond bullshit that Hobby Lobby can claim a religious exemption because of contraceptives while their shitty craft store supplies are made in China, one of the worst human rights abusers in the world and by far the largest abortion-providing country in the world thanks to their one-child policy. If Hobby Lobby is what Christianity is, I'll have something else.

Their 401k program also invests in companies that produce contraceptives.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Their 401k program also invests in companies that produce contraceptives.

I don't know the specifics in this case, but most companies do not choose which mutual funds to provide to their employees. Instead it is usually the plan administer that does.

Also, hobby lobby isn't investing in those funds, the employees are. So, this whole trying to catch them being hypocritical thing with the 401k is just as much bullshit as the law suit itself.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I don't know the specifics in this case, but most companies do not choose which mutual funds to provide to their employees. Instead it is usually the plan administer that does.

Also, hobby lobby isn't investing in those funds, the employees are. So, this whole trying to catch them being hypocritical thing with the 401k is just as much bullshit as the law suit itself.

The whole thing is bullshit. And hobby lobby can choose what plans are available for their employees to contribute to as my company does for me. It's all dumb.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The US is too big for 1 big universal single payer to EVER work efficiently.

If State A wants to have a free market based system they can. If State B wants a single-payer system they can.

We'll see how much fun the socialist state of Vermont has with single payer.
 
Top