US Politics: Check with a Court before you see your Doctor

[Aemon Stark]

You can give it whatever name you want, their objection was to any means of artificially inhibiting/preventing the development of a fertilized egg.

Regardless, the SCOTUS decision did not rest on that determination.

One prevents the fertilization of an egg a lot effectively with the withdrawal or rhythm methods, yet those aren't regarded as "abortifacients". Similarly, abstinence prevents fertilization 100% of the time. Sounds pretty unconscionable. Charitably, that would make these kinds of objections moral Ludditism.

I did say "charitably".

[lokisnow]

Commodore, when the drugs were developed there was one theory that the drug worked as an abortifacient.

Science has tested this theory and disproven it. The drugs do not have abortive effects. The mechanisms in play are the same as other birth control in that it prevents fertilization.

Despite this Christianist zealots continue to insist on believing the disproven theory and basing their objection on the disproven facts.

Also hobby lobby insurance covered these drugs. They decided to stop covering them after the passage of Obama care in order to claim they were victims and make a cheap political point at the expense of their employees health.

[ThinkerX]

Commodore should have checked through the links in the article he linked to. I did so, and found this:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/splitting-the-difference-on-illegal-immigration

The author of Commodore's article spoke in approving words of this piece. I found it to be detailed, with many facts, mostly supplied by the 'Pew Hispanic Center'. Not sure if that group is credible or loony. Warning: This is a long article, bordering on 'research paper.'

Anyhow...

The latest figures compiled by the Pew Hispanic Center indicate that there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants, a number that includes more than one million children under the age of 18. Overall, the undocumented represent approximately 4% of the nation's population, 5% of its labor force, and 28% of its foreign-born population.

These numbers understate things somewhat, for the simple reason that the undocumented often live with relatives who are here legally. Some illegals have spouses who are either legal immigrants or citizens. Still more numerous are the 4.5 million native-born (and therefore citizen) children under 18 with at least one illegal parent. As a result, the total number of individuals living in households with at least one illegal immigrant exceeds 15 million, representing about 6% of the population.

But while concerns about illegals' reliance on social programs may be warranted (as discussed below), most undocumented immigrants are not here looking for "freebies." Overwhelmingly, they migrate in pursuit of work. This is particularly true for undocumented males: Among all men in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 64, illegal immigrants are the most likely to be working. In 2009, for example, 93% of undocumented men participated in the labor force, compared to 86% of legal-immigrant men and 81% of native-born men. Yet the opposite pattern is evident among women. In 2009, 58% of undocumented women were in the labor force, compared to 66% of legal-immigrant women and 72% of native-born women. So while a majority of undocumented women do work, more of them remain at home — presumably to care for their children — than do other women in America.

Rather, these immigrants have taken major steps toward entering the American mainstream, like buying homes. They have been encouraged to do so by an assortment of public policies, including the Internal Revenue Service's move to supply illegal immigrants with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers in lieu of Social Security numbers, which has allowed undocumented workers to secure mortgages.

Similarly, illegal immigrants have been joining labor unions and participating in demonstrations, including highly visible and angry street protests in 2006 against proposed punitive legislation in Congress. Meanwhile, their undocumented children have been educated in public schools, with many preparing for higher education and loudly demanding in-state tuition at public universities. Such young people have also been visibly advocating passage of the DREAM Act, which would provide illegal immigrants who came here as minors a path to citizenship.

In 1986, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (or IRCA), which granted legal status and a path to citizenship to nearly 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. Widely recognized as having facilitated hundreds of thousands of fraudulent legalization claims, IRCA has since rendered the term "amnesty" virtually unspeakable by American politicians and public officials.

Almost as notorious are IRCA's employer sanctions, which were the quid pro quo for the amnesty at the heart of IRCA's legislative compromise. Those sanctions imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hire immigrants not authorized to work in the United States. But because immigrants can establish "authorization" with identity documents that are easily counterfeited, the sanctions have proved ineffective. Over the years, several programs have been implemented that rely on more effective verification methods. But these initiatives have largely been stymied by a coalition of employers, immigrant advocates, and civil libertarians opposed to anything resembling a "national identity card."

Few Americans now recall that, prior to IRCA, it had never been against federal law to hire a non-citizen lacking work authorization. Today, individuals who hire fewer than ten illegal workers during any 12-month period are unlikely to be prosecuted. This conveniently offers relief to many small-business owners and most home owners hiring gardeners, painters, or cleaning ladies.

The same ambivalence is evident among Americans in general. Despite popular outrage over illegal immigration, there has been remarkably little hostility directed toward illegal immigrants, and indeed many people express sympathy for them. This relative tolerance stems, in part, from the fact that (as we have seen) important sectors of our economy depend on undocumented laborers. But those accepting of illegal immigrants are not only business owners driven by market competition and the desire to avoid more burdensome requirements for verifying the legal status of new hires. They are also home owners motivated by convenience and empathy, as well as social-service providers and educators who, unsurprisingly, are not eager to inquire into the immigration status of the men, women, and children seeking their help. And local law-enforcement officials are generally reluctant to get drawn into immigration issues, especially pertaining to illegals.

And the authors proposed 'solution' in a nutshell:

If we succeeded in removing the hyperbole and stereotypes from the immigration debate, our politics might open itself to a balanced approach to the problem: legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them. Under this proposal, illegal immigrants who so desired could become "permanent non-citizen residents" with no option of ever naturalizing.

Detailed comparisons are made with the legal status of US 'residents' in US territories - American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.

I find this proposal to be disturbing. It would be a better realistic fix than what we have now, but it also takes a major step into turning the US into a flat out 'caste system.'

[Horza]

It was like he was a Republican politician.

Too moderate on Israel issues.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Too moderate on Israel issues.

It is one of the oddities of US politics that Republicans are so obsessively pro-Israel, yet actual Jewish Americans are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs (Jews have been voting Democratic longer than blacks; the last Republican to win a plurality of Jews was Coolidge in 1924, and he only managed it because most of the left-leaning voters went to the third party progressive candidate). It really makes you wonder what the Republicans think they are getting out of it.

[Inigima]

It is one of the oddities of US politics that Republicans are so obsessively pro-Israel, yet actual Jewish Americans are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs (Jews have been voting Democratic longer than blacks; the last Republican to win a plurality of Jews was Coolidge in 1924, and he only managed it because most of the left-leaning voters went to the third party progressive candidate). It really makes you wonder what the Republicans think they are getting out of it.

Well, a more charitable interpretation is that it's a matter of principle for them and not one of political advantage.

[Maltaran]

. It really makes you wonder what the Republicans think they are getting out of it.

Evangelicals who believe in the Rapture, I expect.

[Horza]

Evangelicals who believe in the Rapture, I expect.

Relying on other faiths to trigger one's own apocalpyse smacks of laziness.

[awesome possum]

Relying on other faiths to trigger one's own apocalpyse smacks of laziness.

Also known as The American Way (™)

Speaking of The American Way, Wall Street has raked in almost a billion dollars helping companies move overseas to avoid taxes

The top 10 firms to work on the so-called “inversion” deals have brought in $819.8 million from the deals in just the past three years, according to a New York Times analysis.

The top of the list of corporate offshoring advisers is full of familiar names. Goldman Sachs leads the way with an estimated $203 million in fees, followed by JP Morgan ($185 million), Morgan Stanley ($98 million), and Citigroup ($72 milion). Those figures represent just the past three years of deals and are based on both public disclosures and analyst estimates of the fees paid in various corporate deals.

The deals in question — called “inversions” because they involve an American company buying a foreign-held firm based in a low-tax country and then flipping the merged company’s address to the tax haven nation without necessarily relocating in any practical sense — have boomed in the years since the recession. But the Times figures only date to 2011, so fees paid to the banks on dozens of inversions in prior years aren’t counted.

The deals are great for banks, and the corporate tax savings from them make Wall Street’s cut of the deal look tiny. But they have come under increasing fire in the past month as the White House has called for “a new sense of economic patriotism” from the country’s business elites and billionaire investor Mark Cuban has promised to sell off his holdings of any company that ditches America in order to shrink its tax bill. A bill to close the loopholethat makes inversions legal has been introduced by the House by Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), and the Joint Committee on Taxation thinks the bill would save taxpayers almost $20 billionover the next decade.

...

Despite costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year, companies that move profits overseas to duck taxes still receive over $1 billion per year in government contracts.

I don't understand how this shit is legal in any way... well, I mean I do, because the banks helped write the laws, but jesus fucking wept how much more do these assholes have to do before people get pissed off enough to force congress to do something about it?

And what is it going to take to stop shit like this?

[jarl the climber]

It is one of the oddities of US politics that Republicans are so obsessively pro-Israel, yet actual Jewish Americans are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs (Jews have been voting Democratic longer than blacks; the last Republican to win a plurality of Jews was Coolidge in 1924, and he only managed it because most of the left-leaning voters went to the third party progressive candidate). It really makes you wonder what the Republicans think they are getting out of it.

Out of curiosity where does the money from AIPAC go? I'm not an expert on this but you figure it would go to politicians who favor Israel irregardless of their party and that money might be distributed a little more evenhandedly.

[aceluby]

Also known as The American Way (™)

Speaking of The American Way, Wall Street has raked in almost a billion dollars helping companies move overseas to avoid taxes

I don't understand how this shit is legal in any way... well, I mean I do, because the banks helped write the laws, but jesus fucking wept how much more do these assholes have to do before people get pissed off enough to force congress to do something about it?

And what is it going to take to stop shit like this?

Half this country absolutely hates all kinds of taxes, therefore they will support anyone who dodges taxes for any reason, even if it means their personal taxes will increase because of it. It doesn't make sense, but nobody said the people that support this crap are smart.

[Shryke]

Out of curiosity where does the money from AIPAC go? I'm not an expert on this but you figure it would go to politicians who favor Israel irregardless of their party and that money might be distributed a little more evenhandedly.

It does. Though the GOP is the more firmly pro-Israel block. But that's not saying much really.

Though I'd say the big difference is in the character of the support. The GOP is like actively pro-Israel in all things. The Democrats are more of a scale form that to "too afraid of the consequences to ever really criticize Israel".

[Inigima]

Unqualified support for Israel is a near-universal position in American politics regardless of party.

There was a supposed leak of a transcript of a conversation between Obama and Bibi in which Obama played much harder ball than he is publicly, but both sides claim it's not real. It's not currently possible to be sure.

[Fez]

Commodore should have checked through the links in the article he linked to. I did so, and found this:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/splitting-the-difference-on-illegal-immigration

The author of Commodore's article spoke in approving words of this piece. I found it to be detailed, with many facts, mostly supplied by the 'Pew Hispanic Center'. Not sure if that group is credible or loony. Warning: This is a long article, bordering on 'research paper.'

The Pew Hispanic Center is one of the many subcenters of the Pew Research Center, one of the more respected nonpartisan thinktanks in the US these days, and a subsidiary of Pew Charitable Trusts (they of the $5 billion endowment). And they truly seem to be nonpartisan because they seem to piss off Democrats and Republicans in equal measure. They usually don't take stances on issues, just supplying facts, but their focus at times can tell you how they feel about certain issues; for instance the incredible amount of research they've done into the damage humans have done to the oceans.

It is one of the oddities of US politics that Republicans are so obsessively pro-Israel, yet actual Jewish Americans are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs (Jews have been voting Democratic longer than blacks; the last Republican to win a plurality of Jews was Coolidge in 1924, and he only managed it because most of the left-leaning voters went to the third party progressive candidate). It really makes you wonder what the Republicans think they are getting out of it.

The end times.

I also find it funny that of the 33 Jewish members of the current US congress, only one of them is a Republican, and he'll be gone come January (Eric Cantor). And yet the GOP keeps asking for our votes.

[MerenthaClone]

And yet, prior to 2001, the Muslim vote was also solidly Republican. Something like 70% of US Muslims voted for Bush the first time around. (And only 4% four years later). Politics are strange, and I honestly don't know why the Republicans are so solidly pro-Israel unless its a vestige of the Cold War.

[Inigima]

I also find it funny that of the 33 Jewish members of the current US congress, only one of them is a Republican, and he'll be gone come January (Eric Cantor). And yet the GOP keeps asking for our votes.

I didn't know you were one of us. L'chaim!

[Mudguard]

Also known as The American Way (™)

Speaking of The American Way, Wall Street has raked in almost a billion dollars helping companies move overseas to avoid taxes

I don't understand how this shit is legal in any way... well, I mean I do, because the banks helped write the laws, but jesus fucking wept how much more do these assholes have to do before people get pissed off enough to force congress to do something about it?

And what is it going to take to stop shit like this?

We need corporate tax reform. There are many potential solutions to this problem, but I don't think there is bipartisan support for any single proposal.

[aceluby]

Unqualified support for Israel is a near-universal position in American politics regardless of party.

There was a supposed leak of a transcript of a conversation between Obama and Bibi in which Obama played much harder ball than he is publicly, but both sides claim it's not real. It's not currently possible to be sure.

It makes it really hard to have a decent conversation on the subject because of it. Whitewash the Israeli breakage of the cease fire, don't even talk about the Palestinian teenager that was kidnapped and tortured to death, can't talk about how Israel admits that the Hamas had nothing to do with the Israeli teenagers being kidnapped, can't talk about the continued illegal occupation of the west bank, can't talk about how they put these people into locked concentration camps and then bomb them when Israel knows they have no defense and nowhere to go. Nope. If you talk about that you're an anti-Semite.

Since the Hamas are terrorists, they are the 'bad guys' and if they are the 'bad guys', obviously anyone who fights them are the 'good guys'.

That's American logic for ya.

[aceluby]

We need corporate tax reform. There are many potential solutions to this problem, but I don't think there is bipartisan support for any single proposal.

But if you cut corporate taxes to zero, how can you give carve-outs to your donors?

[Mudguard]

But if you cut corporate taxes to zero, how can you give carve-outs to your donors?

Rich government contracts with little oversight?