U.S. Politics 2016: "You Suck!!!" "No, you Suck!!!"

[TrackerNeil]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

They are always pursuing their interests in any case. Quoting from the link in your quote of Tywin et al.:

How is this good for anyone except the politicians? This is how we end up with "bridges to nowhere" and rule by corporations (who are the ultimate source of most campaign cash). The new way is not good, but the old way was also bad and going back to it is not really an option.

It's good because it's the oil that lubricates the gears of government, which most people agree is a necessary part of society. The way you build coalitions is not through coercion but coalition-building, and incentives of many times are required to make a governing coalition. How else do you think this gets done? Magic?

[Martell Spy]

GOP’s Obamacare trouble: “Repeal and replace” turns out to be tougher than it sounds
Kevin McCarthy wants to play a risky game with Obamacare repeal, using a political logic that has repeatedy failed

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/30/gops-obamacare-trouble-repeal-and-replace-turns-out-to-be-tougher-than-it-sounds/

[Ice Queen]

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's not a question of individual good or bad schools, the question is whether one or other system is at greater risk of producing bad educational outcomes. I would tend to be of the opinion that a system with less oversight and accountability would have a higher risk of producing negative educational outcomes.

Do we know what proportion of charter schools have been objectively assessed as failed schools, vs the proportion of public schools that have been objectively assessed as failed schools? That sort of statistic might give us some idea as to whether the charter school system is a better or worse approach to the education of the masses than a public school system.

Out early dip into the charter school pool has seen about 4 charter schools established and 1 has completely failed and a second has had significant problems. A small sample size to be sure, but a 50% significant problems rate is certainly a lot higher than the rate of significant problems in our state schools, so things haven't got off to all that great of a start.

Here in PA, charters underperform public schools, although most reports go out of their way to stress the most charters here are in low income urban area with a high proportion of students of color. A CREDO report found that Philadelphia's charters enroll a smaller percentage of low income students and that they made higher gains than their traditional counterparts. You can see where that's going. Another CREDO study found that overall, charters negatively impact learning. 

Statistically speaking, the gains that online charter students saw in math were so limited, it was "literally as though the student did not go to school for the entire year," said Macke Raymond, director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, in a call with reporters. 

http://thenotebook.org/articles/2015/10/28/cyber-charters-have-overwhelming-negative-impact-credo-study-finds

http://thenotebook.org/articles/2016/03/07/pa-gets-poor-grades-charter-advocacy-group

https://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions.pdf

They whine about lack of funding for charters, but nowhere does it mention that during a 9-month budget standoff last year, school districts did not receive their state funding and had to borrow millions of dollars just to keep the lights on. 

[Ice Queen]

19 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Right, but those are problems with infrastructure investments that are directly funded by the government as well. The firms and workers actually carrying out the projects are almost always from the private sector anyway, after all.

As was mentioned above, some of the thinking around privatizing the entire process here seems to be that the private sector will solve these kinds of issues more cheaply than the government would, when the sizes of their own profit margins are going to be determined by how expensive or slow these projects turn out to be, as opposed to when the government is footing the bill and they don't have to care as much. In practice though, funding the projects this way might give rise to a host of other problems related to incentives and monopolies and so on that OGE mentioned, but at the end of the day it is still an investment plan and not just a way to hand out public assets to Trump's friends. 

The government has to care MORE than a private contractor. And you could make the argument that things got done better and faster when private contractors weren't involved and highway construction workers were state employees. Here's a great example. Over the summer, some dimwit private worker accidentally lit a tarp on fire during a construction project on one of the busiest roads in the city. The result? The structural beams on the bridge almost melted and closed the bridge for weeks, to the tune of $213K PER DAY that we had to pay for. The state billed the contractor for the cost, but I'll bet real money the contractor just declares bankruptcy then starts up again under another name. 

[Martell Spy]

Behind "Make America Great," the Koch Agenda Returns with a Vengeance

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/behind-make-america-great-the-koch-agenda-returns-with-a-vengeance
 

[Martell Spy]

Trump Treasury pick made millions after his bank foreclosed on homeowners
Steven Mnuchin's OneWest filed to take a 90-year-old woman's house after a 27-cent payment error.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-treasury-foreclosed-homes-mnuchin-232038

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

I suspect Haley has her sites on higher office.  She does need some foreign policy experience.

Thus begins the process of people coming to despise Haley not for her politics but because she is so ambitious.  Unlike the men who aspire to higher office, they are just taking one for the team.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Thus begins the process of people coming to despise Haley not for her politics but because she is so ambitious.  Unlike the men who aspire to higher office, they are just taking one for the team.  

I'm indifferent to Haley.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

GOP’s Obamacare trouble: “Repeal and replace” turns out to be tougher than it sounds
Kevin McCarthy wants to play a risky game with Obamacare repeal, using a political logic that has repeatedy failed

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/30/gops-obamacare-trouble-repeal-and-replace-turns-out-to-be-tougher-than-it-sounds/

Yeah, the GOP is discovering just how difficult it is to reform the health insurance system. It's a huge industry with, literally, tens of millions of stakeholders. 

I can see this whole thing falling out in one of two ways:

- Republicans, who have no appetite for a gargantuan fight on an issue that has never been a favorite of theirs, will pass a "repeal" that leaves most of the ACA in place and does away with a few unpopular pieces like the mandate, IPAB, etc. They'll rename it the Ronald Reagan Healthcare Affordability Thingie, and then move on.

- Ryan and McConnell let the crazies have their way and they repeal the law root and branch, causing widespread chaos and anger among the industry and the American public. 

I can't say which is more likely, though. Depends on how willing Trump is to risk upsetting Americans, I suppose.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm indifferent to Haley.

Ok, good for you, but that's not how the public in general will feel about her when she runs for that higher office.  She's made a move that declares to everyone that she really wants to be president.  Even some super decent and progressive folks here penalized Hillary for her ambition while ignoring the huge line up of male candidates who had similar ambition.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

snip

This just demonstrate what a huge intellectual trash pile the Republican Party is.

They sit there and bitch about the ACA, but have no serious replacement. They just sit there and mumble something lame about buying insurance across state lines.

They have no clue how to solve adverse selection problems or risk selection problems.

And they sit there and tell blatant whoppers about the ACA. And people believe it.

Of course the ACA has some problems. Some of the crap the Republican Party has gotten away with. Jeez.

[Dr. Pepper]

How can they do away with the mandate and leave the rest intact?  The mandate is the reason the best parts of the ACA exist and work.  Wouldn't rates skyrocket even more if insurance companies are still required to cover anyone who wants insurance but don't have as large a pool of insured sharing the risk? 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

How can they do away with the mandate and leave the rest intact?  The mandate is the reason the best parts of the ACA exist and work.  Wouldn't rates skyrocket even more if insurance companies are still required to cover anyone who wants insurance but don't have as large a pool of insured sharing the risk? 

The mandate was there to solve the adverse selection problem. Yes, without the mandate or something like it, rates would go up.

You either have something like the mandate or you go back to the days of denying folks with pre-existing conditions insurance.

[LongRider]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I love Ha-Joon Chang (from Cambridge) because he makes economics so clear to the average joe.

I'll check him out, thanks.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, LongRider said:

I'll check him out, thanks.

My pleasure.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Wrl6199 said:

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I'll check him out, thanks.

My pleasure.

Why did you answer me when that directed towards Rippounet?  Very confusing.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But the media does a very poor job of spreading the truth by allowing many people who I would call "false economists" (i.e. intellectuals who have a superficial background in economics but are actually being paid by interest groups) a large voice in the public debate and not confronting them when they very obviously lie to the public.

Hmm. Sounds like a pretty good description of Trump's economic advisers.

You have:

1. David Malpass

2. Stephen Moore

3. Larry Kudlow

4. Peter Navarro

If clowns had an all-pro squad, these guys would make the team repeatedly.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm indifferent to Haley.

Once she runs for office, though, most Americans won't be. Americans love women in politics but hate to actually put them there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Once she runs for office, though, most Americans won't be. Americans love women in politics but hate to actually put them there.

So, out of curiosity, if she runs and does well where sexist and racist statements either roll off or serve to her benefit (a nasty State senator named Jake Knotts called her a "Raghead" and it actually helped her campaign) will you say the same thing?  She seems to do well, we will see.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, out of curiosity, if she runs and does well where sexist and racist statements either roll off or serve to her benefit (a nasty State senator named Jake Knotts called her a "Raghead" and it actually helped her campaign) will you say the same thing?  She seems to do well, we will see.

Yes, I will. However, I think running as a Republican would help her; many of the people who carried "Trump that Bitch" signs in 2016 will then have an incentive to be actually respectful of an ambitious woman.