U.S. Politics, 10

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The Economist's Lexington has a very good column here on the Citizens United decision. I'm not sure that I'm as sanguine about it as he is, but that's probably because I'm a despicable commie. He argues that the impact of the ruling is being overblown because money in elections tends to have diminishing returns, that is to say, you need a certain amount of money to be relevant, but after that the excess money you could dump in does not guarantee you victory.

I've wondered on what we consider acceptable for the effect of money on elections. Clearly we accept some tradeoff between dollars and votes because otherwise, we'd try to strictly regulate all campaign messages and allocate each candidate an equal amount of money to use, or to go more extreme, disallow any political messages outside of tightly controlled government PSAs. Neither do we go the opposite extreme with a linear relationship between money and votes in some sort of shareholder democracy.

What about in between? Well Meg Whitman's spent 120 million in California and with a population of roughly 40 million, that's $30 per person. Now, if I lived in California, I'd prefer that she just gave me $30. I'd certainly rather have $30 than $30 worth of campaign literature. But clearly that option is unacceptable as well.

Now the relation between money and votes is unknown, possibly stochastic, and almost certainly with diminishing marginal utility, but if we were to find out the exact relationship, what would we find acceptable? It would have to be less effective than if candidates simply handed the cash out, but what other conditions? Would we only allow a logarithmic function? What about a root? Or is the principle of free speech so sacrosanct and all encompassing that we'd allow unlimited campaign funding even if it turned out that TV spots were worth more than their costs worth of direct bribes?

What do ac

[一方通行]

This is B.S.. Are we a government of equally-applied laws, or a government of bureaucrats who grant waivers to preferred constituents?

I oppose the mandate, but either it applies to everyone or nobody, not just those large employers with sufficient pull to get what they want. Personally, I don't believe it had anything to do with contributions or anything underhanded like that. The threat that they'd drop coverage completely, a political catastrophe for the Administration, was all the leverage they needed.

except, the waivers are granted on a 1 year basis, and can only last at maximum until 2014, when government subsidies kick in. the whole point is to ensure that people don't lose coverage as certain portions of the bill take effect at different times. the waivers were put in the bill in the first place because of republican shitfits over "PEOPLE WHO LIKE THERE CURRENT CARE WILL LOSE IT", exactly so that wouldn't happen. the fact that republicans are now throwing a shitfit over "THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING OUT WAIVERS TO PROTECT CURRENT CARES" and will likely get away with it is somewhat revolting.

Well, I think Democrats are less able to obstruct not because they are somehow more noble, but because the party discipline to endlessly and constantly filibuster just isn't there. The neat thing about liberals is that we value intellectual and cultural diversity; the downside is that we can't get together to do very much.

this is pretty much the most self congratulatory way to say 'we cant find our ass with both hands' ive ever read.

The Economist's Lexington has a very good column here on the Citizens United decision. I'm not sure that I'm as sanguine about it as he is, but that's probably because I'm a despicable commie. He argues that the impact of the ruling is being overblown because money in elections tends to have diminishing returns, that is to say, you need a certain amount of money to be relevant, but after that the excess money you could dump in does not guarantee you victory.

i applaued Citizens United. its not like the politicians weren't all bought before. now theres no bid limit so its more expensive. maybe some guy will miss out on a yacht or whatever cause of spending to much on polotics.

[TrackerNeil]

this is pretty much the most self congratulatory way to say 'we cant find our ass with both hands' ive ever read.

Maybe not, but we found a way to reform health insurance despite massive, intense opposition. So I think congratulations are in order. Yup.

[Shryke]

The Economist's Lexington has a very good column here on the Citizens United decision. I'm not sure that I'm as sanguine about it as he is, but that's probably because I'm a despicable commie. He argues that the impact of the ruling is being overblown because money in elections tends to have diminishing returns, that is to say, you need a certain amount of money to be relevant, but after that the excess money you could dump in does not guarantee you victory.

Maybe he's got more info in the article I'll look at later, but using Meg Whitman in his example is pretty dumb, considering she's self-funded, which changes the game alot.

[ThinkerX]

Maybe not, but we found a way to reform health insurance despite massive, intense opposition. So I think congratulations are in order. Yup

Maybe you missed the part where thirty of the largest companies in the country managed to exempt themselves from paying the health care costs for many hundreds of thousands of their employees?

And that said employees absolutely *CANNOT* afford any sort of health insurance package and as a result *WILL* get hit with a crippling IRS fine - and get denied medi-whatever likely as not because they make too much money. (and, of course, a lot of doctors no longer accept medi-whatever anyhow).

You do realize that even more large companies are going to follow suit here, and that these exemptions will be renewed year after year.

Unless you believe corporations dodging their responsibilities is a swell idea.

So, just why are congratulations in order, again?

[Commodore]

LINK

PACs

Foreign-connected PACs

Election cycle: 2010

Total: $12,204,154

To Dems: $6,517,903

To Repubs: $5,581,701

[Shryke]

If your point is that the money is about equal on both sides, I don't think that says too much. A lot of people just don't like the concept no matter which side benefits from it. One of the worries being that exactly this will happen. Both parties will just be ever more beholden to special interest. Which was perhaps already the case and is just now being made worse.

No, his point is "Scary Foreigners support Democrats slightly more then Republicans".

All based on some definition for "Foreign-connected PACs" that, given the site it comes from, is probably chosen to get the results shown.

[Ocean of Notions]

Sucking reindeer dildo, more or less awkward than pictures of you in a Nazi uniform? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11511574

[TrueMetis]

Sucking reindeer dildo, more or less awkward than pictures of you in a Nazi uniform? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11511574

Definitely less if he's doing it for no other reason than bigotry, but in the context of historical reenactment more.

[Shryke]

At the end of the article....did O'Donnell really suggest that scientists are "implanting full human brains into mice?" I know that she's said masturbation is wrong, I know that she's said that she has proof that China is planning to take over the US, but did she really say that?

Yes. How is this surprising?

[Ormond]

Well, the other comments, while insane for someone who actually won a Senate Primary, at least have some explanation. A lot of Americans are Bible-thumper types who might like the idea of masturbation being bad. A lot of Americans are paranoid about foreign forces taking over the US. This one goes to a level that I just can't explain on any level.

It's possible she stumbled across this website and didn't realize it's an elaborate hoax:

http://www.rythospital.com/clyven/

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Economist's Lexington has a very good column here on the Citizens United decision. I'm not sure that I'm as sanguine about it as he is, but that's probably because I'm a despicable commie. He argues that the impact of the ruling is being overblown because money in elections tends to have diminishing returns, that is to say, you need a certain amount of money to be relevant, but after that the excess money you could dump in does not guarantee you victory.

The Economist's Lexington has a very good column here on the Citizens United decision. I'm not sure that I'm as sanguine about it as he is, but that's probably because I'm a despicable commie. He argues that the impact of the ruling is being overblown because money in elections tends to have diminishing returns, that is to say, you need a certain amount of money to be relevant, but after that the excess money you could dump in does not guarantee you victory.

In 2008, Obama spent more than twice as much as McCain on ads in 2008, by passing federal funds so he could avoid federal spending restrictions. In fact, he spent more than Bush and Kerry combined did in 2004. I wasn't posting here then, but were a lot of people here complaining about that then? Did he "buy" that election?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apxzrZEHqU1o&refer=home

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

Massive amounts were raised and spent in the 2008 Congressional elections as well, with a majority of that sum being raised from outside the districts in which it was spent, and Democrats outspending Republicans 3-2. Also, the person who spent the most won more than 90% of the elections.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4666370

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/us-election-will-cost-53-billi.html

All this happened before Citizens United. Meg Whitman's spending in California is being financed largely from her personal assets, and therefore also has nothing to do with the Citizens United decision. Moveon.org and similar conservative groups also preexisted that decision.

Citizens United has become a rhetorical catch-all for generalized complaints about campaign spending, but that largely misses the mark. The problem already existed, and I think it's probably accurate to say that the incremental effect of Citizens United is much less than is being made out.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

except, the waivers are granted on a 1 year basis, and can only last at maximum until 2014, when government subsidies kick in. the whole point is to ensure that people don't lose coverage as certain portions of the bill take effect at different times.

Fine, but then why have the requirement at all until 2014 when the subsidies kick in? Shouldn't the law, whatever it is, be applied equally to all companies, not just those big enough to have political pull in D.C.?

the waivers were put in the bill in the first place because of republican shitfits over "PEOPLE WHO LIKE THERE CURRENT CARE WILL LOSE IT", exactly so that wouldn't happen. the fact that republicans are now throwing a shitfit over "THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING OUT WAIVERS TO PROTECT CURRENT CARES" and will likely get away with it is somewhat revolting.

You missed the point. I don't think any employers should have to meet those requirements, and that the requirement should be repealed. If the government wants to delay that requirement until 2014, fine. What I object to is the selective application of that requirement via waivers. Either all businesses should have to comply, or none.

[TrackerNeil]

You missed the point. I don't think any employers should have to meet those requirements, and that the requirement should be repealed. If the government wants to delay that requirement until 2014, fine. What I object to is the selective application of that requirement via waivers. Either all businesses should have to comply, or none.

Selective issuance of waivers isn't very fair, true, but at the same time we're working towards a system that will be vastly more fair than the one we had pre-ACA. If waivers help minimize the disruption of getting there, I'll choke them down.

[TrackerNeil]

Anyways, requiring people to vote is kind of counterproductive to the idea of a free society. People have the right to vote 'if they want to', but requiring them to vote sort of diminishes this right and would be a very poor idea.

Do you apply that standard to jury duty as well?

[Altherion]

Here is a nice article about Obama's efforts in the Middle East:

We've seen this happen several times over the past year. The Obama administration demands a settlement freeze. Netanyahu says no. And the U.S. is forced to plead with Abbas to negotiate anyway, giving in on the position the U.S. laid out in the first place.

...

More than one Middle Eastern diplomat has called it "amateur hour."

"This administration is the most friendly to the Palestinians ever but the execution is appalling," one senior Palestinian official said. "They have fallen into every trap the Israelis have set for them. And they have fallen into every trap we have set for them." Ironically, but not surprisingly, this official didn't want to cause tensions in the relationship with the Obama administration by speaking on the record.

...

"This administration came with good intentions, it came with renewed willingness to deal with the region, and not from a big brother sort of perspective, but through partnership," said Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian foreign minister now at the Carnegie Endowment. "But President Obama has not translated his Cairo speech and all these good intentions into a coherent program and that is why his credibility among the Arab public has declined."

...

"Let's be honest, nobody agreed with the Bush policies," a senior Arab diplomat told me. "But he sat across from you and looked you in the eye and told you what he was going do, and why. And then he did it. In our region we want to sit with you, get to know who you are. No leader wants to hear about U.S. policy from a podium."

It's pretty long so there is a lot more in it about Syria, Iraq and various other things, but "amateur hour" is a good summary. I particularly like this statement: "They have fallen into every trap the Israelis have set for them. And they have fallen into every trap we have set for them." Somebody should draw a cartoon of Abbas and Netanyahu discussing what else each can get from Obama by starting and stopping negotiations.

[TerraPrime]

"They have fallen into every trap the Israelis have set for them. And they have fallen into every trap we have set for them."

So, why are we trying to broker peace in a region where neither party desire it?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So, why are we trying to broker peace in a region where neither party desire it?

Because it's HISTORIC. And we run the risk of losing our entire army in the middle east if Iran and Israel decide to go at it.

[turinturambar]

Do you apply that standard to jury duty as well?

Yes. I don't think people should be forced to sit a jury. Nor is the average person always intelligent or objective enough to properly judge somebody.

[TrackerNeil]

Yes. I don't think people should be forced to sit a jury. Nor is the average person always intelligent or objective enough to properly judge somebody.

Well, I have served on two juries, both murder cases, and in each I was impressed by the attention my fellow jurors showed to the evidence, and by the seriousness with which they approached their judgments. I think people are capable of more than even they themselves expect, but sometimes it takes a bit of pressure (i.e., a mandate to serve) to get them to rise to the challenge.