Politics

[Ndaccountant]

Republicans vote against extending $85 billion in tax credits. It seems clear what they are against, but I don't understand what the Republicans are for anymore.

Strange times: Republicans block tax credits -- as a protest - CNN.com

(CNN) -- It is a rare, strange day when Senate Republicans vote to block billions in tax cuts. But that's what happened Thursday when they chose to freeze a massive tax credit package in order to protest how Democrats are running the chamber.

By a vote of 53-40, the EXPIRE Act, which would extend $85 billion in tax credits, failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.








House GOP unveil tax reform plan







Burnett deconstructs GOP tax reform plan







McConnell: No agreement to raise taxes
Only one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, voted with Democrats to advance the measure. The rest of the GOP votes were "no," as Republicans vented anger that Democrats have refused to allow votes on their amendments to this and most other bills in the past year.

"This is bigger than any one bill," Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor. "What (Democrats are) doing is muzzling the people of this country, a gag order on the people we were sent here to represent."

"It's time to act as the U.S. Senate should act and allow (both sides) the opportunity to express their view," echoed Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah.

The pushback comes as the Senate struggles to find a way to operate. Traditional processes and procedures for working through sharp divides have broken down in the past year.

Democrats, frustrated with Republicans for blocking presidential nominees, changed a significant piece of the filibuster rule. Triggering the so-called "nuclear option," Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats made it easier to get around GOP objections. That raised hostility behind the scenes to a new level.

At the same time, Republicans are also furious that Democrats will not let bills have a so-called "open" process, where senators can propose amendments and get a vote on their idea.

That is far from unique to Reid or this Senate. Republicans have used the same tactic to choose friendly amendments when they were in the majority.

But after months of tension and in a bitter midterm election year where they want to rail against Democrats, Republicans decided that Thursday was the day to take a stand on the process issues in the Senate.

Reid fired back, insisting that Republicans are the ones causing obstruction in the Senate and are doing so for political reasons.

"It should not be lost that Republican senators are continuing their agenda by just saying no," the Nevada senator said after the vote. "I wonder who called them today to kill this bill? No matter the excuse, Republicans continue to wage war against common sense."

Reid also made sure to point out that, with Thursday's vote, Republicans were blocking their own cause.

"That's what just happened, Republicans just voted against tax cuts," Reid said.

What happens next?

The bill to extend the tax cuts is frozen temporarily but not dead. Reid suggested that both sides should take the weekend to think about their next moves.

It's interesting, for as much as D's like to paint R's as people playing politics with the special committee or with the IRS, Harry Reid is equally obsessed with using the senate for political points. Whether it has been Koch brothers or something else, he has been just as embarrassing as House R's.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's interesting, for as much as D's like to paint R's as people playing politics with the special committee or with the IRS, Harry Reid is equally obsessed with using the senate for political points. Whether it has been Koch brothers or something else, he has been just as embarrassing as House R's.

Harry Reid is demented and has a sick obsession with the Koch brothers.

Millionaire and billionaire Democratic donors = do gooders

Millionaire and billionaire Republican donors = rich, evil people "buying the democracy."

 

[RDU Irish]

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

 

[connor_in]

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Dude! That was like 36 years ago!

 

[chicago51]

Harry Reid is demented and has a sick obsession with the Koch brothers.

Millionaire and billionaire Democratic donors = do gooders

Millionaire and billionaire Republican donors = rich, evil people "buying the democracy."

Both parties are horribly corrupt because the influence that money has on elected officials.

It pretty much will be that way for the forceable future especially after the Supreme Court said millionairs and billionairs have a constittutional right to buy off and corrupt our government.

Yes Harry Reid is somewhat hypocritical. The main difference I see here though is that one side wants to do something about the money in politics via a constitutional amendment, while the other side wants to undo any limits (not that many left thanks to the SCOTUS) on campaign finance all together.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Both parties are horribly corrupt because the influence that money has on elected officials.

It pretty much will be that way for the forceable future especially after the Supreme Court said millionairs and billionairs have a constittutional right to buy off and corrupt our government.

Yes Harry Reid is somewhat hypocritical. The main difference I see here though is that one side wants to do something about the money in politics via a constitutional amendment, while the other side wants to undo any limits (not that many left thanks to the SCOTUS) on campaign finance all together.

The corruption is also attributable to the amount of power the Federal government has. Money and power are two sides of the same coin. As long as the Feds are pulling all the strings, the money will find a way. Improved transparency and campaign finance laws are worth pursuing, but the real solution is structural-- a devolution of power away from Washington and back to states and municipalities. Lobbying a single bureaucrat in Washington is a lot easier than 50 spread across the country.

Democrats are kidding themselves if they think they can reduce corruption while simultaneously increasing the size and power of the Federal government.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The corruption is also attributable to the amount of power the Federal government has. Money and power are two sides of the same coin. As long as the Feds are pulling all the strings, the money will find a way. Improved transparency and campaign finance laws are worth pursuing, but the real solution is structural-- a devolution of power away from Washington and back to states and municipalities. Lobbying a single bureaucrat in Washington is a lot easier than 50 spread across the country.

Democrats are kidding themselves if they think they can reduce corruption while simultaneously increasing the size and power of the Federal government.

I like it. I don't trust many politicians, and certainly not a whole group of them in a little world removed from the rest of us. That's why I want a small government with little power.

 

[chicago51]

The corruption is also attributable to the amount of power the Federal government has. Money and power are two sides of the same coin. As long as the Feds are pulling all the strings, the money will find a way. Improved transparency and campaign finance laws are worth pursuing, but the real solution is structural-- a devolution of power away from Washington and back to states and municipalities. Lobbying a single bureaucrat in Washington is a lot easier than 50 spread across the country.

Democrats are kidding themselves if they think they can reduce corruption while simultaneously increasing the size and power of the Federal government.

True money is only 1/2 of the coin. Leppy's post was addressing money in politics and how there are billionaire donors on both sides. Which I agreed with but I do think a faction of the Democratic Party is seriously interested in addressing the money issue. The power is a separate issue though they are both part of the corruption issue.

I also think that just because something does not solve the whole problem does not mean you should not address it. So why not address getting the money of politics.

Now to your point, which is a good one. Yes power of the federal government has gotten out of hand. I don't consider myself a conservative but I do consider myself a better conservative than many so called conservatives as I believe we should reduce the federal government in many many areas. As we both agree in reducing the federal government size in many areas certainly all non-economic and health areas.

When it comes to economic issues I don't go as far as you do in the state vs federal debate. We both tend to agree that technology, and globalism are bringing about many difficult economic, so we tend to favor some form of distributional economic policy. Difference is the you feel that it should be done more at the state and local levels, which I agree with I'd say 50% and 100% in a perfect world. Since we don't live in a perfect world I feel that the federal government has to play some sort of role in insuring the sick (though not by giving money to insurance leaches) and in addressing the downfalls of the 21st century economy.

I think if we transferred everything or at least lot of functions back to the states it may lead competition between the states like we have with low wage countries. Who ever could offer the worst work place safety standards, corporate taxes,lowest wages, etc will get most of the jobs. We that to an extent right now with states as it is and I admit these days you got to be a corporate kiss ass to get jobs to your state. So my question is how do we transfer more back to the states while preventing state cannibalizing one another to the lowest common denominator?

I don't have answer to this question. The happy median I can think of is to make things funded through federal grants but administered completely on a state level but I realize that doesn't eliminate the whole issue of federalism.

Anyway always a pleasure discussing these things with you. I agree with on the problem of federalism 100%. I just don't have the foresight or intelligence to tell you what a good solution is at this point considering the economic issues the country and quite frankly world faces going forward.

 

[chicago51]

Also boys lets face it neither party at least not the mainstream portions (there may be some factions here and there) has any interest in reducing the power of the federal government. Some do favor reducing the federal government's power in areas that would allow their corporate friends to dominate a greater and greater share of the marketplace but certainly not reducing federal power on a grand scale.

 

[Wild Bill]

True money is only 1/2 of the coin. Leppy's post was addressing money in politics and how there are billionaire donors on both sides. Which I agreed with but I do think a faction of the Democratic Party is seriously interested in addressing the money issue.

Who are they?

 

[chicago51]

Who are they?

The Senate is supposed to vote on amendment this year supposedly at some point this summer that will basically refute the notion that spending money in terms of political elections is free speech and cannot be regulated by Congress, state, or local governments.

It has been a platform issue for the Progressive Caucus (which is the size of the Tea Party caucus without the media coverage) for a few years now. I believe PC has 84 members in the House.

 

[Wild Bill]

The Senate is supposed to vote on amendment this year supposedly at some point this summer that will basically refute the notion that spending money in terms of political elections is free speech and cannot be regulated by Congress, state, or local governments.

It has been a platform issue for the Progressive Caucus (which is the size of the Tea Party caucus without the media coverage) for a few years now. I believe PC has 84 members in the House.

I had to re-read your initial post - you were speaking specifically about campaign finance. I thought you meant overall taxing and spending at the federal level. Sorry.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Holder: Americans Opposed to Obama's Transformation of US Guilty of 'Quiet Prejudice'

Michelle Obama warns of resurgent school segregation - CBS News

Still the most divisive administration in US history. Holder says if you're against fundamental transformation, you're racist. First Lady says there is still segregation in US schools. I've got simple replies for both:

Holder: I oppose fundamental transformation from anyone of any color of any party. I'd be just as opposed if it were an old white guy in the White House pulling all this shit.

First Lady: We have government run education. Point the finger in that direction. Thanks.

 

[magogian]

Holder: Americans Opposed to Obama's Transformation of US Guilty of 'Quiet Prejudice'

Michelle Obama warns of resurgent school segregation - CBS News

Still the most divisive administration in US history. Holder says if you're against fundamental transformation, you're racist. First Lady says there is still segregation in US schools. I've got simple replies for both:

Holder: I oppose fundamental transformation from anyone of any color of any party. I'd be just as opposed if it were an old white guy in the White House pulling all this shit.

First Lady: We have government run education. Point the finger in that direction. Thanks.

There was a very helpful critique of the "resurgent school segregation" myth recently in the WSJ. In short, much of the issue has to do with the misleading definition of segregation used by the myth tellers.

Mr. Orfield and his admirers do not regret the court's failure in 1954 to bar race-conscious public policies, of which they approve. They want more racially balanced schools and see Brown as a failed promise. But this comes from Mr. Orfield's problematic definition of segregation. In his view, any school in which various minority groups together constitute a majority of the student body is "segregated."

The number of such majority-minority schools has indeed increased. Seventy-four percent of black and 80% of Latino students are currently enrolled in them, up several points over the past two decades. But this is not, as Mr. Orfield argues, because federal court decisions have released many communities from desegregation orders issued many years ago. (Mr. Orfield seemingly favors permanent court supervision over most school districts.) The core problem is a stunning transformation in the racial demography of the school-age population that has resulted from immigration and the differential fertility rates of immigrants and natives.

In 1970, the federal government at last began to enforce Brown vigorously. Federal courts issued desegregation orders that forced the redrawing of school-attendance zones and imposed large-scale busing in many cities. At that time, four out of five public-school students were white. Today, that percentage is just over half (50.5%). In the South, whites already are a minority (47%), and an even smaller minority in the West, where barely 40% of public-school pupils are white. Whites are a still smaller public-school minority in the largest and most rapidly growing Southern and Western states: only 27% in California, 31% in Texas and 43% in Florida. These demographic trends are not expected to stop in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Orfield includes those numbers in his widely cited reports but shrinks from drawing the logical conclusion: It would be logistically impossible—without huge fleets of school buses full of children embarking on daily cross-country drives—to eliminate what he defines as "segregated" schools in much of America today.

Its rather remarkable how liberals twist anything with a racial component into a negative. Liberals use the increasing racial diversity as their basis for the resurgence of segregated schools. I guess the answer is more white people . . .

 

[Bluto]

Calling the Obama administration the "most divisive in US history" is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Calling the Obama administration the "most divisive in US history" is pretty ridiculous.

That's nice. Look at the narratives being spewed out of DC since 2009:

rich vs poor
white vs black
white democrats vs minority conservatives (ugly)
insured vs uninsured
employed vs unemployed
citizens vs "undocumented workers"
CEO's in suburban America who "don't want to pay" for inner city kids' education in Illinois
law abiding gun owners vs "common sense" laws to get guns off streets

What am I missing?

 

[Bluto]

That's nice. Look at the narratives being spewed out of DC since 2009:

rich vs poor
white vs black
white democrats vs minority conservatives (ugly)
insured vs uninsured
employed vs unemployed
citizens vs "undocumented workers"
CEO's in suburban America who "don't want to pay" for inner city kids' education in Illinois
law abiding gun owners vs "common sense" laws to get guns off streets

What am I missing?

Historic perspective?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Historic perspective?

Lol I see you're on your A game today

 

[chicago51]

Don't know about anyone else but I am so rooting for an impeachment over Benghazi. Seriously I am I got my personal weird reasons for it.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[chicago51]

Anybody have an thoughts on the potential buyout and merger of Direct TV by AT&T.

Monopoly?

 

[chicago51]

An older article but a good one IMO about the telecom barons. Considering we have Comcast and Time Warner trying to get together.

http://nytimes.com/2012/11/28/opini...onopoly telecom new york times&sc=&sp=-1&sk=&

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Bad Connections

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON November 27, 2012

Syracuse

SINCE 1974, when the Justice Department sued to break up the Ma Bell phone monopoly, Americans have been told that competition in telecommunications would produce innovation, better service and lower prices.

What we’ve witnessed instead is low-quality service and prices that are higher than a truly competitive market would bring.

After a brief fling with competition, ownership has reconcentrated into a stodgy duopoly of Bell Twins —AT&T and Verizon. Now, thanks to new government rules, each in effect has become the leader of its own cartel.

The AT&T-DirectTV and Verizon-Bright House-Cox-Comcast-TimeWarner behemoths market what are known as “quad plays”: the phone companies sell mobile services jointly with the “triple play” of Internet, telephone and television connections, which are often provided by supposedly competing cable and satellite companies. And because AT&T’s and Verizon’s own land-based services operate mostly in discrete geographic markets, each cartel rules its domain as a near monopoly.

The result of having such sweeping control of the communications terrain, naturally, is that there is little incentive for either player to lower prices, make improvements to service or significantly invest in new technologies and infrastructure. And that, in turn, leaves American consumers with a major disadvantage compared with their counterparts in the rest of the world.

On average, for instance, a triple-play package that bundles Internet, telephone and television sells for $160 a month with taxes. In France the equivalent costs just $38. For that low price the French also get long distance to 70 foreign countries, not merely one; worldwide television, not just domestic; and an Internet that’s 20 times faster uploading data and 10 times faster downloading it.

America’s Internet started out as No. 1 in speed. It now ranks 26th, far behind the networks in Bulgaria, Ukraine and Lithuania. Americans pay the sixth highest median price in the modern world for Internet data — 16 times the rates paid by South Koreans, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Just as serious is the problem of coverage: in France, South Korea and other modern countries a superfast Internet is or will soon be available everywhere. In America, AT&T’s fiber optic lines stop short of homes and small businesses, while Verizon plans to end its fiber-optic installation work once it reaches 18 million residences.

As of now huge parts of the United States will never get on the information superhighway but will rather slog along on the digital equivalent of a country road. This presents a genuine economic threat to America: the future industries and jobs that require a universal ultra-high-speed network, after all, will most likely be developed somewhere else.

But the problem is more immediate for consumers. That’s because both of these cartels are telling lawmakers that they need less regulation, not more. A lighter government hand, they say, will mean more competition and yield a better deal for consumers.

In practice, though, deregulation has meant new regulations — written by corporations and for corporations — that have often thwarted competition and run roughshod over the customer.

Few know, for example, that since 1913, Americans have had a legal right to telephone service at any address — or did until recently. Asserting that we now live in a world of competitive telecommunications, the Bell Twins have already managed to repeal this right in at least six states (Alabama, California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin). And the cartels are apparently working vigorously to extend this repeal. Doubters have only to count the lobbyists hovering around state legislatures: in Kentucky, AT&T employs 36 of them.

The new regulations have the potential to leave some customers with only mobile telephone service, which does not work in many areas. Moreover, some proposed new rules, if adopted, may actually put people at risk: AT&T, for instance, has suggested shutting down its old copper wire system — the only telecommunications platform that worked in some areas after Hurricane Sandy because it relies on a separate, minimal supply of electricity.

The remedy for these anti-consumer practices is straightforward: bring back real competition to the telecom industry. The Federal Communications Commission, the Justice Department and lawmakers have long said this is their goal. But absent new rules that promote vigorous competition among telecom companies, it simply won’t happen.

Just as canals and railroads let America grow in the 19th century, and highways and airports did so in the 20th century, the information superhighway is vital for the nation’s economic growth in the 21st. The nation can’t afford to leave its future in the hands of the cartels.

David Cay Johnston, a visiting lecturer at Syracuse University’s College of Law, is author of “The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use ‘Plain English’ to Rob You Blind.”
© 2014 The New York Times Company

 

[magogian]

Monopoly?

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Buster Bluth]

America dumbs down: a rising tide of anti-intellectual thinking

An aversion to complexity—at least when communicating with the public—can also be seen in the types of answers politicians now provide the media. The average length of a sound bite by a presidential candidate in 1968 was 42.3 seconds. Two decades later, it was 9.8 seconds. Today, it’s just a touch over seven seconds and well on its way to being supplanted by 140-character Twitter bursts.

where it was once the least informed who were most vulnerable to inaccuracies, it now seems to be the exact opposite. “More sophisticated news consumers turn out to use this sophistication to do a better job of filtering out what they don’t want to hear,” he blogged.

 

[Bluto]

Climate science is a hoax: Big Oil, GOP, God say so - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Good article on climate debate and on along the same lines as the one Buster posted.

 

[GoIrish41]

America dumbs down: a rising tide of anti-intellectual thinking

That's a great article (although I may have liked it because it validated what I already thought to be true ) In any case, thanks for sharing Buster.

I particularly thought the below two passages were on point:

"But are things actually getting worse? There’s a long and not-so-proud history of American electors lashing out irrationally, or voting against their own interests. Political scientists have been tracking, since the early 1950s, just how poorly those who cast ballots seem to comprehend the policies of the parties and people they are endorsing. A wealth of research now suggests that at the most optimistic, only 70 per cent actually select the party that accurately represents their views—and there are only two choices."

"A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, released last month, tracked 1,800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 and 2002, and compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median-income Americans, the affluent, business interests and powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich and their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule,” they wrote.

Smart money versus dumb voters is hardly a fair fight. But it does offer compelling evidence that the survival of the fittest remains an unshakable truth even in American life. A sad sort of proof of evolution."

 

[RDU Irish]

Climate science is a hoax: Big Oil, GOP, God say so - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Good article on climate debate and on along the same lines as the one Buster posted.

comment section is the real gold. One I found interesting, claiming sea levels were 400 feet lower 20,000 years ago. That is just plain ridiculous. That would be a 1/4" increase in sea levels per year if you averaged it out. Some nut also claimed New York was under two miles of ice.

http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20in%20Sea%20Level_expanded%20version_template.pdf

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Fastest-growing American cities are mostly in the West. And then there’s Gaithersburg, Md.

Nothing surprising. Americans vote with their feet, and they like economic opportunity coupled with lower taxes/ cost of living. Texas still kicking ass. Surprised no FL cities were in there. No clue how the hell Gaithersburg, MD made the list.

 

[GoIrish41]

Fastest-growing American cities are mostly in the West. And then there’s Gaithersburg, Md.

Nothing surprising. Americans vote with their feet, and they like economic opportunity coupled with lower taxes/ cost of living. Texas still kicking ass. Surprised no FL cities were in there. No clue how the hell Gaithersburg, MD made the list.

People will go where the jobs are. Texas is giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and since that is where the jobs are, that is where people will go. Gaithersburg, MD has a lot of government jobs, which attracts a lot of government contractors. It also has a lot of jobs in telecommunications, which are soon to follow when there are government and contracting posiitions. The American Red Cross has big presence there as well.