U.S. Politics: John Boehner Discovers Teh Intrawebs

[Ramsay Gimp]

And why is it that a Profile in Courage like Rand Paul spends more time beating up on purported welfare and disability cheats, who get a few thousand dollars a month out of the system at most, while not giving a shit about corporate cheats who tanked the global economy, cost us billions, and continue to hoard the benefits of the recovery to themselves while wages for everyone else stagnate?

Why does Rand Paul care more about someone getting disability that they may not deserve than about, say, West Virginia mining companies that constantly flout safety regulations, get their workers killed, and laugh off the fines?

Of course there's some fraud in the system. There's fraud in every system. Why obsess over small fry when the biggest and most harmful offenders continue to skate? Because Rand Paul, Hero of the Rugged Individualists, is just as much of a cynical self-interested trough-wallower as the rest of them, preying on the same ugly poor-blaming impulse that the rest of his shitheel party uses.

He attacks corporate welfare all the time. It's not either/or

Speaking of Ron Paul wanting to have it both ways:

"Two days after the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity republished a column suggesting that last weeks terror attack on the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo was a false flag operation, the former congressman himself weighed in on the conspiracy theory Friday, saying his group ran the column simply to pose some questions about the official version of events.

In the column, paleoconservative crank and Reagan administration Treasury Department official Paul Craig Roberts cast doubt on the notion that the Paris attack truly stemmed from Muslim anger over Charlie Hebdos cartoons lampooning Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Roberts, a notorious 9/11 truther, speculated that the U.S. government executed the attack to punish France for its independent foreign policy, citing its vote at the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state and French President Francois Hollandes recent call to ease sanctions on Russia.

Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washingtons thumb, Roberts wrote."

Do you believe this theory Ron Paul?

"Appearing on Newsmax TV today, Paul defended Roberts column, arguing that neither he nor Roberts actually believe the attack was a false flag. They just Have Some Questions.

I think he suggested it, he wanted a discussion and he has some really good things in there, Paul said. Its a shame that the media doesnt pick up and say what about this chief investigator of this event committed suicide right in the middle of it? I have no idea whats going on there but that to me is big stuff."

ETA:

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/ron_paul_defends_insane_charlie_hebdo_conspiracy_theory_im_just_trying_to_get_the_truth_out/

Ugh. Ron's conspiracy theorizing (which seems to have picked up since retirement) is unfortunate, can't deny that. He certainly 'aint doing his son any favors

[TerraPrime]

The focus on people gaming the welfare system is note new and will forever be a favorite of the Republicans. Even when things like mandatory drug-testing of welfare recipients show vanishingly small percent of people who are both drug users and welfare recipients, the idea still gains endorsement and support. This is not a policy based on fiscal analysis - this is a moral, social policy meant to punish those using the welfare system.

[Shryke]

The focus on people gaming the welfare system is note new and will forever be a favorite of the Republicans. Even when things like mandatory drug-testing of welfare recipients show vanishingly small percent of people who are both drug users and welfare recipients, the idea still gains endorsement and support. This is not a policy based on fiscal analysis - this is a moral, social policy meant to punish those using the welfare system.

That's not fair TP. It's also a moral-economic policy based on the idea that anyone on government assistance is almost certainly a cheating moocher cause why else would they need government help.

Plus, bootstraps and all that.

It's a complex issue with multitudes of approaches to how one shits all over the poor.

[ThinkerX]

A disturbing example of the Conservative/Libertarian mentality at work:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-oil-town-turns-on-a-local-midwife-asking-about-infant-deaths/ar-AA86Wzy

When one mother delivered a stillborn infant in May 2013 — Young's first-ever such fatality — she grieved with the parents, who had a plaster cast made of the hands and feet of the daughter they named Natalie.

While attending the funeral at Rock Point Cemetery, Young noticed new grave markers for seven other infants. Another five babies would soon be buried there, she said, bringing the total to 13 for the year.

Young isn't sure how many were stillborn and how many died before their first birthday. Yet she knew one thing: All of the mothers had carried their babies to term in Vernal.

Young asked herself: Was this an aberration? Or was there a common cause? Could the deaths be tied to the oil industry, the region's economic powerhouse?

She reports her concern. And the reaction:

The midwife became a pariah. She got phone calls warning her to "shut up" or leave town. One caller said a few dead babies wasn't worth putting any heat on the oil companies. She was dismissed as a meddling midwife and pilloried on local talk radio and in Internet chat rooms. Recently, she found rat poison in the cattle feed at her ranch 40 miles outside town, but none of her animals got sick.

Meanwhile, some townsfolk suspect drug use and other unhealthy habits caused the infant deaths.

"These oil fields guys drink a dozen Monster energy drinks a day. Many do drugs and exist solely on hot dogs," said Lucas Massey, 33, a natural gas operator. "With lifestyles like that, how can people even hope to have healthy babies?"

Seth Lyman, an air-quality researcher for Utah State University here, also doubts oil drilling is responsible, calling it "extremely unlikely that poor air quality in Vernal is the primary cause of an infant mortality epidemic."

Yet air quality has been an issue in Vernal. A recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study showed winter ozone layers here spiked well above Environmental Protection Agency safety levels, though no studies have linked ozone to the deaths.

Mayor Sonya Norton called Young's questions an insult to a town trying to clean up its air. "People get very protective of what we have here," she said. "If you challenge our livelihood, it's considered personal."

Many of the commentators sided against the women, calling her questions 'lies.'

[ThinkerX]

Article arguing for different scaled minimum wages:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/should-cities-have-a-different-minimum-wage-than-their-state/ar-AA8ck3z?ocid=msnclassic

According to a 2014 study from the St. Louis Fed, despite the fact that many states had minimums that were close to the federal rate, when the cost of living in each state was factored in, minimum wages across the country became a bit more polarized. The report shows that when wages were adjusted for the cost of living, so-called real wages showed an increase in some areas, such as Texas, Idaho and the Dakotas. But these calculations of real wages decreased income in other areas including New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

There is also a link to an academic report within the article stating that the minimum wage hikes have been very positive for workers and employers alike, though I'm not certain about its credibility.

[lokisnow]

In related Cuomo is proposing a 10.50 and 11.50 min wages for new York and nyc, respectively.

[Kalbear]

Ormond - you could have something there. 45 to 64 year old population grew by 20 million from 2000 to 2010. There is an increase in 18 to 24 year old group in the same period by 3 or 4 million but that is not close enough to offset the increase in baby boomer population. I still think there is enough fraud going on in the system that goes beyond the "a few people taking advantage" stage.

You can think that all you want, but statistical analysis and actual research finds absolutely nothing to indicate that you are correct. There is no statistical merit to what you're talking about, much less actual proof of widespread fraud.

Ultimately it comes down to this, Zelt: you share a common belief of deservedness. If someone has had a bad time of life, it is generally the belief that this person had it coming. If someone is poor, they deserve to be poor. If someone is on disability, they likely should just get better or deserve that pain. This is a common psychological belief system that is so common it's given a name - the 'just world fallacy'.

It doesn't, however, make it actually truth.

[davos]

By the way, I am totally digging post-election Obama, who's now calling for new taxes on the wealthy. Although this proposal will go nowhere in the GOP Congress, it's nice to see the president staking out progressive positions that draw a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

While I agree with many of his recent proposals in principal, these come only when he is a lame duck president working with a congress that he can expect to get almost zero done with anyway. This is the Obama I, and many others voted for, and he has been missing for most of his presidency. I would rather have seen him fight for some of these ideas when it actually might have mattered to try to shift the direction this country is headed rather than wait until such gestures are all sound but no fury. I can't see this as anything but posturing to improve how he is remembered by progressives (and maybe a bit of venting given the constraints he has worked under for so long).

[TrackerNeil]

While I agree with many of his recent proposals in principal, these come only when he is a lame duck president working with a congress that he can expect to get almost zero done with anyway. This is the Obama I, and many others voted for, and he has been missing for most of his presidency. I would rather have seen him fight for some of these ideas when it actually might have mattered to try to shift the direction this country is headed rather than wait until such gestures are all sound but no fury. I can't see this as anything but posturing to improve how he is remembered by progressives (and maybe a bit of venting given the constraints he has worked under for so long).

As far as I am concerned, the last six years have seen a shift in the direction of the country. The Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, Lily Leadbetter, the stimulus, two Supreme Court justices, etc. Sure, there is more I would have liked to see, but let's not lose sight of the big picture here. We've scored some significant progressive victories over Obama's term, victories the GOP will find nearly impossible to undo.

[Summah]

Unfortunately there has been way too much rhetoric like this from one side of the aisle for it to not worry me. Part of me does think it's just good ol' red meat to throw at the masses to rile them up. Then again, if they get to choose between cutting social programs and raising taxes on corporations, I know damn well what they will choose.

What I find extremely concerning is that the SSDI trust fund runs out of money in 2016 unless congress does something to repair it, which means that everyone's benefits will go down by 20%. I am not at all optimistic that the current congress will do anything to fix this issue, rather that they may use an excuse to gut disability even more. Sothat we have Republicans making a point to talk about disability fraud is concerning, because it could be the beginning of a series of talking points to sell people on gutting it. I have been unable to find any groups that are actually working on this; not disability advocacy groups, not social security groups, nothing. And in the past congress has never let it get this close before doing something to at least fix the problem temporarily.

zelticgar, the reason I asked if you had any experience is because I find most people who believe there is a significant amount of fraud, based on anecdotal evidence, against what the stats actually say, believe that it's easy to get on disability, when the process is actually not, lots of paperwork, forms, questionnaires, compiling medical records, for some disabled people that's all quite difficult, it requires a lot of time and energy. Also I'd like to point out that disability lawyers are paid on a percentage of back pay for awards, if the person is denied the lawyer makes no money, so these lawyers generally only take cases they believe they can win, because otherwise they're not getting paid. In general, and I find that most people without personal experience really do not understand this at all, being poor is very time consuming and expensive, disability adds to those expenses and time consumption a great deal.

[Shryke]

As far as I am concerned, the last six years have seen a shift in the direction of the country. The Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, Lily Leadbetter, the stimulus, two Supreme Court justices, etc. Sure, there is more I would have liked to see, but let's not lose sight of the big picture here. We've scored some significant progressive victories over Obama's term, victories the GOP will find nearly impossible to undo.

Also Obama has been talking about wealth inequality for a LONG time now. He's tried a couple of times to make it the centre of the national conversation.

The thing is, the "bully pulpit" isn't as effective as many seem to think. Especially, imo, these days when the media will often not willingly pick up the POTUS's narrative for him.

[Commodore]

Why is inequality a more relevant metric than median income or median net worth?

[sToNED_CAT]

Also Obama has been talking about wealth inequality for a LONG time now. He's tried a couple of times to make it the centre of the national conversation.

The thing is, the "bully pulpit" isn't as effective as many seem to think. Especially, imo, these days when the media will often not willingly pick up the POTUS's narrative for him.

Exactly that's the problem - he only talked about it. For example this recent tax proposal - why not pass it when he had an actual chance, like when Democrats had majority? Why not slap those fees on banks after the financial crisis when whole banking sector was extremely unpopular? But no let's wait until Republicans have control of both houses of Congress to ensure that nothing of it will pass. This seems to be more like political equivalent of trolling, than really serious proposal. Like said above this is only about his legacy.

[Commodore]

trolling is what Obama does best (and it can be effective)

You know, you just know, that after the president goes out there and announces he wants to make community college free for all Americans — as though anything government does is “free” — or is unilaterally and unconstitutionally legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants, he comes back to the offices, pulls out the presidential BlackBerry, and gleefully follows along as the Right goes completely ape over these wild policy decisions.

Imagine his delight after it “leaked” that he will propose raising taxes on the wealthy by $320 billion over the next 10 years, including increases to the capital gains and inheritance taxes.

This, of course, has no chance of passing. But then Tuesday night’s State of the Union address could be the first one in history deliberately designed solely to generate a Pavlovian rage response in members of the opposing party...

...The liberal writer Bill Scher thinks this is good politics. “Fortunately for Obama,” Scher wrote just after the November 2014 midterms, “bringing out the worst in Republicans serves both his political and his policy purposes.”

The problem with that theory is Obama’s own political instincts are pretty bad, except when it comes to his own immediate self-preservation.

The president could have gone one of two ways after the midterms, in which his party lost control of the Senate in a wave that really could not have gone better for Republicans.

First, he could have looked at some alarming data and noted how he is practically the only elected Democrat in the country who has benefited from his presidency. Since 2010, the Democratic Party has lost 69 seats in the House of Representatives and 14 Senate seats — and a staggering 913 seats in the state legislatures.

Among presidents, “It is Barack Obama who holds the modern record for overall losses, at least through 2014,” writes Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.

In the House and state legislatures, “Obama has doubled (or more) the average two-term presidential loss from Truman through Bush.”

This Democratic political wipeout, says Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, is “the most undertold story in politics.”

What that story suggests is not that the president should be trolling his opponents, but that he should be doing what he can to find common ground — if only to save his party from further destruction.

But that is not where he has gone. Instead, he has doubled down on presidential unilateralism and executive authority.

He has done this because it’s what he likes and wants to do. It has long been a conscious choice of this White House to pursue what David Plouffe, a key Obama adviser, called the “stray voltage theory.”

Major Garrett, then of National Journal and now of CBS, explained it in early 2014: “The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness.

[Ormond]

You can think that all you want, but statistical analysis and actual research finds absolutely nothing to indicate that you are correct. There is no statistical merit to what you're talking about, much less actual proof of widespread fraud.

Ultimately it comes down to this, Zelt: you share a common belief of deservedness. If someone has had a bad time of life, it is generally the belief that this person had it coming. If someone is poor, they deserve to be poor. If someone is on disability, they likely should just get better or deserve that pain. This is a common psychological belief system that is so common it's given a name - the 'just world fallacy'.

It doesn't, however, make it actually truth.

Uh, SJD, this does not logically follow. Perhaps you have evidence from other posts that Zeltigar does have just world beliefs. But simply falsely believing that 25% of those on disability are committing fraud does NOT have to go along with that fallacy. Someone who believes that obviously thinks that the fraudsters are NOT getting "what they deserve" since most of them are not caught -- therefore they think a big injustice IS being committed. And it is perfectly possible for such a person to also believe that the 75% of persons on disability they think are legitimate do NOT "deserve" their disability.

"Just world" beliefs often are connected with a rejection of many different forms of "social welfare." But in terms of disability, that would lead to a belief that even those who are truly disabled do not deserve support because they "deserve" their disability -- which is a very different belief than thinking a lot of people are unfairly getting support because they really do not have a disability at all and are committing fraud.

[aceluby]

trolling is what Obama does best (and it can be effective)

How is it trolling when there is no 'common ground' that the Republicans will agree to? Short answer: it's not.

[Fez]

While I agree with many of his recent proposals in principal, these come only when he is a lame duck president working with a congress that he can expect to get almost zero done with anyway. This is the Obama I, and many others voted for, and he has been missing for most of his presidency. I would rather have seen him fight for some of these ideas when it actually might have mattered to try to shift the direction this country is headed rather than wait until such gestures are all sound but no fury. I can't see this as anything but posturing to improve how he is remembered by progressives (and maybe a bit of venting given the constraints he has worked under for so long).

That's part of it. But I'm sure a major part is also staking out Democratic positions for 2016. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's been in close contact with Hillary the past couple of months, talking about what themes she wants to be hitting during her campaign.

[Commodore]

How is it trolling when there is no 'common ground' that the Republicans will agree to? Short answer: it's not.

to stoned_cat's point, that he is waiting until now (when common ground is needed) to propose these changes, when he had large majorities before, gives the appearance of trolling

[TrackerNeil]

The thing is, the "bully pulpit" isn't as effective as many seem to think. Especially, imo, these days when the media will often not willingly pick up the POTUS's narrative for him.

I agree. People have this idea that the president can dictate terms to Congress, or somehow get the nation to turn on a dime in terms of policy, but there's no reason to think that is possible, or has ever happened. I think the president can focus public attention on a given issue, and thus help set the legislative agenda, and he can even influence his own party. For example, when Barack Obama expressed support for same sex marriage, lots of Democrats began to move that way as well. However, that doesn't mean he can move Republicans, or even independents for that matter.

[The guy from the Vale]

Why is inequality a more relevant metric than median income or median net worth?

Because (in)equality already covers the median income/net worth.

Also, because the median is a terribly inaccurate measure of anything. The bottom 49% could be doing terribly while the median stays the same or even rises.