U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[Fez]

It's not often you see opinions like this from the Republican side of the aisle: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/double-the-nih-budget.html

Thoughts? Seems like a broadly positive idea to me, although I guess if combined with the general pressures exerted by the Republican party on the budget overall might lead to cuts in other areas that can ill afford it...

ST

There's quite a few areas where Newt, and more than a few other Republicans, want increased spending (besides Defense of course): NIH, NASA (but not to study Earth climate change, anything but that), road transportation, mental health and autism services, etc. Problem is, they are ideologically committed to shrinking the overall size of government, and because they can't get the cuts they really want (the safety net) they take the pound of flesh from the things they otherwise support.

Unless they stop doing that, any calls for increasing spending from them is entirely hypocritical.

ETA: And of course, this isn't nearly all Republicans either. There's plenty these days that want to shut it all down. Its the difference between Rick Snyder and Scott Walker.

[The Fallen]

To be fair, I doubt Commodore knows what it means either, but it sure sounded catchy when Rush said it on his show.

Here's another head-scratcher. A group of 100 conservative lawyers filed a motion at the Supreme Court stating that gay marriage will cause approximately 900,000 abortions over the next 30 years.

This is one of those, "I can't even" moments, because I can't even understand where the idiotic logic in this comes from... I mean, beyond a not-so-closeted bit of hateful bigotry from some very-closeted conservatives.

So couples that can't reproduce are now responsible for abortions?

There is no correlation between gay couples marrying and the actions of single women. And why would a straight couple not marry because gay people can? Out of pettiness?

[Ormond]

So couples that can't reproduce are now responsible for abortions?

There is no correlation between gay couples marrying and the actions of single women. And why would a straight couple not marry because gay people can? Out of pettiness?

It's not exactly "pettiness", but the reasoning does have to do with the claim that as marriage becomes less "exclusive" it will be less attractive to heterosexuals, especially men.

Some on the right have long argued that young men, especially working class or poor young men, won't want to enter an institution that includes same sex couples. This is partly because of pure anti-gay bias, but also because supposedly society's accepting same sex marriage will signal that "fathers aren't necessary" because of all the visible lesbian couples with kids. Therefore poor and blue collar men will be less likely to marry the women they impregnate and there will be more out of wedlock births and more children abandoned by their fathers so the welfare rolls and crime will increase. I hadn't seen the abortion argument added before, but that sort of follows along with the same illogical reasoning.

[Swordfish]

It's not exactly "pettiness", but the reasoning does have to do with the claim that as marriage becomes less "exclusive" it will be less attractive to heterosexuals, especially men.

Some on the right have long argued that young men, especially working class or poor young men, won't want to enter an institution that includes same sex couples. This is partly because of pure anti-gay bias, but also because supposedly society's accepting same sex marriage will signal that "fathers aren't necessary" because of all the visible lesbian couples with kids. Therefore poor and blue collar men will be less likely to marry the women they impregnate and there will be more out of wedlock births and more children abandoned by their fathers so the welfare rolls and crime will increase. I hadn't seen the abortion argument added before, but that sort of follows along with the same illogical reasoning.

That is a whole lot of whacky hoop jumping to get to a reason to oppose gay marriage.

I think we are approaching the point where even conservatives will have to stop opposing it. Feels like critical mass is on the horizon somewhere.

[Inigima]

Agreed. The Daily Show actually had a segment last night about how the Republican candidates for president spoke very differently about gay marriage four years ago versus how they talk about it now.

[Hereward]

Something like this by David Cameron at the Conservative Party conference before they passed the Gay Marriage Bill?:

it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

[TerraPrime]

And it is ultimately on the hook for the costs of illness.

ORLY? You don't say, Newt. Please, tell us more about the reasoning we've used to support universal health care, which YOU OPPOSE, to us.

[awesome possum]

Those good ole Republicans, sticking up for the little man. Wait, did I say little man? I meant heterosexual white males.

A committee of the US House of Representatives decided that employees in the District of Columbia could be fired for using in vitro fertilization to start a family or for becoming pregnant while unmarried.

That's right, people of D.C.: members of Congress just voted to let your boss fire you for personal decisions you make at the doctor's office — because your boss believes those decisions aren't consistent with his religious beliefs. Now, the whole House may take a vote on this discriminatory measure.

At the same time, a separate measure introduced in the House would block the Human Rights Amendment Act, another D.C. bill that would ensure that LGBT student groups at religiously affiliated schools and universities have access to the same facilities and resources as their peers. And similar measures on both bills are still pending in the Senate.

In both of these cases, proponents of these congressional actions are stripping these protections in the name of religious liberty.

It's for shit like this that I no longer consider myself a Democrat. I consider myself Anti-Republican. Anyone who supports this party of weaselly, hate-filled fucks is as close to a living CPR dummy as it fucking gets. If you support the GOP, you should be goddamned ashamed of yourself. But I doubt it, because you support the GOP your brain cells both aren't firing on all cylinders, and you left your shame on the couch next to the remote control that lusts for Sean Hannity's cock-gobbling insanity.

[lokisnow]

Usually the policy wonks at vox blindly carry water for polisci trendy beliefs with no basis in nor consideration of the real world outside of the DC bubble.

So imagine my shock at seeing this, which opposes the wonk herd with reality and it's wonderful.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/22/8463843/social-security-retirement-age-increase-poor

[Fez]

Usually the policy wonks at vox blindly carry water for polisci trendy beliefs with no basis in nor consideration of the real world outside of the DC bubble.

So imagine my shock at seeing this, which opposes the wonk herd with reality and it's wonderful.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/22/8463843/social-security-retirement-age-increase-poor

Speaking as one of the herd, I can tell you that there's an awful lot of us here in DC who oppose raising the retirement age. And that's not a new development, even back in 2011, when everyone was talking austerity, Democrats still prevented any changes to Social Security.

[Shryke]

Speaking as one of the herd, I can tell you that there's an awful lot of us here in DC who oppose raising the retirement age. And that's not a new development, even back in 2011, when everyone was talking austerity, Democrats still prevented any changes to Social Security.

Yeah, I'm trying to think of when any competent economists or think tanks support raising the retirement age.

[aceluby]

If anything we should look to lowering the retirement age. It would almost pay for itself since the job openings would get filled by the unemployed, but to really make SS solvent forever all you'd need to do is lift the cap on the SS tax. But can't be touching the rich people's money. SS is for the poor to pay into, not the rich.

[TrackerNeil]

If anything we should look to lowering the retirement age. It would almost pay for itself since the job openings would get filled by the unemployed, but to really make SS solvent forever all you'd need to do is lift the cap on the SS tax. But can't be touching the rich people's money. SS is for the poor to pay into, not the rich.

I know, right? Whenever people talk about the "problem" of SS sustainability, I always just say, "You know, if we only lifted the cap..."

I find that concern about Social Security's solvency is usually a stalking horse for a desire to reduce the scope and generosity of the program. Of course almost nobody who has to run for reelection is willing to admit this, but it's the truth. SS has been around more than 80 years and conservatives still yearn to kill it. It's a white whale they'll never stop chasing.

[lokisnow]

We should totally lower the retirement and Medicare ages and increase so benefits. Pay for the Medicare expansion by allowing medicare to bargain on prices instead if being forced to pay full freight.

I know, right? Whenever people talk about the "problem" of SS sustainability, I always just say, "You know, if we only lifted the cap..."

I find that concern about Social Security's solvency is usually a stalking horse for a desire to reduce the scope and generosity of the program. Of course almost nobody who has to run for reelection is willing to admit this, but it's the truth. SS has been around more than 80 years and conservatives still yearn to kill it. It's a white whale they'll never stop chasing.

Mcardle had a decent article on this last week, she was wrong overall but made excellent points in it.

After reading that, I think it's too steep to just lift the cap. I would lift the cap on the employer side only, that way the employee doesn't see any tax increase in their paycheck. I would consent to phasing out the employer side based on multiples of the cap income at 200% of the cap is only subject to 50% of the tax and keep that going, income over 300% of the cap is only subject to 25% of the tax.

Just never ever means test social security as this is an evil strategy meant as a Trojan horse to destroy the program in the long run.

We should also level a 3% social security tax on capital gains in excess of 5 million.

[TrackerNeil]

Just never ever means test social security as this is an evil strategy meant as a Trojan horse to destroy the program in the long run.

Agreed. Programs for the poor, in the long run, become poor programs.

[Commodore]

A good summary of the NYTimes aritcle on the latest Clinton pay-for-play scandal

• In September 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan and met his friend Frank Giustra (pronounced joo-strah), who wanted to buy uranium mines there.
• Clinton gave a press conference with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, in which he endorsed the leader’s human rights record and democratic progress, even though he had just received 91% of the vote in an allegedly rigged election. The event was a public relations coup for Nazarbayev.
• A couple of days later, Kazakhstan gave Giustra the uranium concessions he requested.
• Giustra then donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a promise of $100 million more to follow.

The Westinghouse Deal

• Later, Kazakhstan wanted to purchase an equity stake in Westinghouse, an American company that serves the civilian nuclear industry. This would require approval by the Hillary Clinton-run State Department.
• Giustra set up a meeting between Kazakhstan energy representatives and Bill Clinton in his Chappaqua home. Giustra and Bill Clinton both denied this meeting ever took place until a New York Times reporter produced photographic evidence.
• The State Department approved the deal and KazAtomProm (Kazakhstan’s state-owned nuclear company) purchased 10% of the company.

Putin and Uranium One

• Giustra’s company was merged into Uranium One, which controls about half of U.S. uranium.
• The Russians wanted to purchase Uranium One, another deal which would require State Department approval.
• Uranium One’s major shareholders gave tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which the foundation didn’t disclose.
• Hillary’s State Department approved the deal and Russia bought Uranium One. Putin can now sell this nuclear fuel to Iran.

If this were Bob McDonnell or Bob Menendez, they'd be fucked and prosecuted (and were for far less).

That will never happen to Hillary, she's untouchable, but surely the Dems can find a better nominee.

There will be an endless stream of these pay-to-play stories from now until election day.

[lokisnow]

Untouchable? Lol, every story is an indication of her not being so. The lack of criminal convictions for the innumerable charges republicans have attempted indicates innocence. And if you don't like that indication go read the fable of the boy who cried wolf.

Lots of attempts to discredit her only indicates the presence of lots of attempts to discredit her. The lack of any measurable outcome indicates the accusations have no credence. The unending torrent of accusations produces so much noise that any valid points are filtered out with the noise.

[Shryke]

A good summary of the NYTimes aritcle on the latest Clinton pay-for-play scandal

If this were Bob McDonnell or Bob Menendez, they'd be fucked and prosecuted (and were for far less).

That will never happen to Hillary, she's untouchable, but surely the Dems can find a better nominee.

There will be an endless stream of these pay-to-play stories from now until election day.

If this were anyone but the Clintons, no one would be reporting on this and the NYT wouldn't be sullying it's not-so-good-in-this-kind-of-case name reporting on the bullshit by a known fabricator.

But because it's the Clintons, places like the NYT like to pretend Vince Foster stories are still something we should be concerned about.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

A good summary of the NYTimes aritcle on the latest Clinton pay-for-play scandal

If this were Bob McDonnell or Bob Menendez, they'd be fucked and prosecuted (and were for far less).

That will never happen to Hillary, she's untouchable, but surely the Dems can find a better nominee.

There will be an endless stream of these pay-to-play stories from now until election day.

You know it's bad when MSNBC doesn't roll with the "right wing conspiracy" garbage. I actually don't believe she's untouchable. It seems a good portion of the left is going full contact. Funny how they'd fall on the sword for Barry, not so much for the Pantsuit.

Maybe they realize that blindly supporting another democratic candidate with zero credentials would be bad for the country as well as their business? Maybe they learned their lesson with Obama? Yeah, I doubt it...

The sad thing to me is, she is their best candidate. Similar to offering up McCain after eight years of Bush.

[Guest]

Maybe they realize that blindly supporting another democratic candidate with zero credentials would be bad for the country as well as their business? Maybe they learned their lesson with Obama? Yeah, I doubt it...

What are your credentials, I wonder, to talk about who has zero credentials?