US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

[Fez]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Is that true? I thought the transition beachhead teams are still there because they haven't been replaced with appointees and as such, they'd likely be the ones writing those reports.

The beachhead teams are still there, as far as I know, but from what I can tell, and certainly its the case at the agencies I work with, most of those teams don't really do anything or sometimes even exist beyond being something on paper.

[OldGimletEye]

Well, I guess it's not "something terrific". Shocking.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-polling-americans-are-unimpressed-gop-health-care-plan

Quote

Combined, it means the American Health Care Act, which some are calling “Trumpcare,” has a 34% favorable rating and a 54% unfavorable rating. (Note that a fairly strong plurality put themselves in the “strongly oppose” camp.)

In contrast, the Affordable Care Act now has a 50% favorability rating in the Fox News poll, making it considerably more popular than the bill GOP officials are trying to replace it with. Making matters slightly worse, while Trump enjoys decent support on his handling of some issues, only 35% of Americans support the president’s handling of health care.

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, which my wife works for and which the Republican health care plan intends to gut, continues to enjoy more national support than the ACA or the Republican plan, with a 57% favorability rating.
 

 

[Commodore]

is the media calling a reduction in the rate of growth a cut?

I wish there were actual cuts, but normally that isn't the case.

[Mexal]

24 minutes ago, Commodore said:

is the media calling a reduction in the rate of growth a cut?

I wish there were actual cuts, but normally that isn't the case.

What are you talking about? It doesn't look like Trump is wants to cut the budget, just cut every agency to pay for increases to Defense, DHS and Veterans.

[Commodore]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

What are you talking about? It doesn't look like Trump is wants to cut the budget, just cut every agency to pay for increases to Defense, DHS and Veterans.

are the agencies getting less money than previously, or just less of an increase?

like if an agency received a $10 billion hike in funding last year, but only a $7 billion hike this year, the media calls that a 30% funding cut, even though the funding still increased. 

 

[Mexal]

Just now, Commodore said:

are the agencies getting less money than previously, or just less of an increase?

like if an agency received a $10 billion hike in funding last year, but only a $7 billion hike this year, the media calls that a 30% funding cut, even though the funding still increased. 

Looks to me agencies are getting less funding than previously.

[Cas Stark]

Just now, Commodore said:

are the agencies getting less money than previously, or just less of an increase?

like if an agency received a $10 billion hike in funding last year, but only a $7 billion hike this year, the media calls that a 30% funding cut, even though the funding still increased. 

 

They're getting less money.  I don't know if the overall budget number goes down or not, due to the increases in military/defense spending.  But he is absolutely attempting to make real cuts.  

[Mexal]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

They're getting less money.  I don't know if the overall budget number goes down or not, due to the increases in military/defense spending.  But he is absolutely attempting to make real cuts.  

I don't believe it does. He's cutting $60+ billion from 17 agencies to pay for $60+ billion increase in 3 agencies.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Not conservative enough!!!!!!

Nobody ever is. In 5 years Ted Cruz will be viewed as a liberal squish. 

[Commodore]

any funding item that can't be justified as unable to be done at the state level should be zeroed out (immediately or gradually depending on how disruptive it would be)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

8 minutes ago, Commodore said:

any funding item that can't be justified as unable to be done at the state level should be zeroed out (immediately or gradually depending on how disruptive it would be)

What does "unable" mean?  That is, almost everything could be done at the state level, but it isn't necessarily the best answer for the nation.  I'll take something relatively uncontroversial like highway spending - isn't that a public good of national importance?  Assuming that this is done, and States that have been receiving large federal subsidies are largely cut off, what does that mean to you about state taxes?  That is, are you willing, and do you think states with relatively low state tax burdens are willing, to either suffer the consequences of less redistribution from other (wealthier or larger) states? 

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

What does "unable" mean?  That is, almost everything could be done at the state level, but it isn't necessarily the best answer for the nation.  I'll take something relatively uncontroversial like highway spending - isn't that a public good of national importance?  Assuming that this is done, and States that have been receiving large federal subsidies are largely cut off, what does that mean to you about state taxes?  That is, are you willing, and do you think states with relatively low state tax burdens are willing, to either suffer the consequences of less redistribution from other (wealthier or larger) states? 

IMO an even better example is environmental regulations.  A lot of conservatives complain about how complicated environmental regulations are in this country, but the solution is better federal laws, not state control.  You can't have 50 different environmental codes, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.  Are states supposed to be testing whether a new pesticide causes cancer or kills all the fish?  How would you deal with interstate issues like acid rain or the seven states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the building of a pipeline?  It would make doing business in America virtually impossible. 

[Commodore]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Are states supposed to be testing whether a new pesticide causes cancer or kills all the fish?

not necessarily (they could perform their own test, or commission one, or require the manufacturer to prove it's safe), but they should have authority over whether to ban the pesticide within their borders

Quote

How would you deal with interstate issues like acid rain or the seven states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the building of a pipeline? 

There are air/water quality issues that cross state lines, and that would justify a federal role.

I'm ambivalent on the national highway thing. You could justify it from a national security perspective. But as far as general movement, state highways connect to each other at borders just fine. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

IMO an even better example is environmental regulations.  A lot of conservatives complain about how complicated environmental regulations are in this country, but the solution is better federal laws, not state control.  You can't have 50 different environmental codes, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.  Are states supposed to be testing whether a new pesticide causes cancer or kills all the fish?  How would you deal with interstate issues like acid rain or the seven states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the building of a pipeline?  It would make doing business in America virtually impossible. 

For manufactured products, we will probably (continue) to get California's and/or Texas' standards.  That is, there would be less federal preemption, and to the extent that a large market drives a result, bingo, that's what everyone else gets, like it or not.  

Riparian and air disputes interstate would become (even more) common - Supreme Court would get busier with inter-state conflicts.  

5 minutes ago, Commodore said:

not necessarily (they could perform their own test, or commission one, or require the manufacturer to prove it's safe), but they should have authority over whether to ban the pesticide within their borders

There are air/water quality issues that cross state lines, and that would justify a federal role.

I'm ambivalent on the national highway thing. You could justify it from a national security perspective. But as far as general movement, state highways connect to each other at borders just fine. 

Commodore - so they ban use within their borders, what about runoff into their neighbor?  Also, if the highways suck, how do you think we are going to get all the wonderful cheap things people buy to the places that they buy them?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Even that one tweet was careless bordering on either stupidity or opportunism. Trump's tax returns are, for half the country, synonymous with "first step towards impeachment". Whether that's realistic or not isn't the point. Along with the FBI investigations and the hypothetical golden shower tapes, the tax returns have come to represent a hail mary for millions of people that might help bring about an end to the current madness they face every day. Maddow and MSNBC can't be unaware of this.

As such, tweeting vaguely about the tax returns without hinting at whether they have found actual evidence of something, or just two pieces of paper with numbers on them that check out, is irresponsible.

 

That's pretty much how she promotes every show. A little teaser Tweet about an hour and a half before showtime. That said, I agree that it was a mistake to lead with this story. It was clearly a leak that came from Trump's camp and did very little to support Maddow's narrative. It was worth a mention or a segment I suppose, but little more.

[Jaxom 1974]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's pretty much how she promotes every show. A little teaser Tweet about an hour and a half before showtime. That said, I agree that it was a mistake to lead with this story. It was clearly a leak that came from Trump's camp and did very little to support Maddow's narrative. It was worth a mention or a segment I suppose, but little more.

I quibble a little with the rollout prior to the show.  A word or two different, saying they had, "a piece" of the returns would have generated as much interest as they did, but been a bit more direct about what was going to go down.

That being said, I believe the story, ultimately, is that the WH acknowledged and confirmed the story (which may have been the actual impetuous for going the way they did). The tax returns overall no longer exist in a vacuum and could be released.

I believe Maddow may have been looking at this as an opportunity to speak out to whomever the Deep Throat of this administration is going to eventually be.  Encourage them to come forward.  Maddow isn't dumb.  Ultimately she knew what she was doing, regardless of ratings. 

[Kalbear]

@Commodore, note also that there are a bunch of regulations being removed that would basically outlaw states' ability to regulate themselves - for instance, they're planning on repealing the emissions guidelines and making California's guidelines (which are stronger than the federal one) illegal. 

How do you feel about that state regulation now?

[Commodore]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

@Commodore, note also that there are a bunch of regulations being removed that would basically outlaw states' ability to regulate themselves - for instance, they're planning on repealing the emissions guidelines and making California's guidelines (which are stronger than the federal one) illegal. 

How do you feel about that state regulation now?

California should be able to set their own guidelines

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

IMO an even better example is environmental regulations.  A lot of conservatives complain about how complicated environmental regulations are in this country, but the solution is better federal laws, not state control.  You can't have 50 different environmental codes, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.  Are states supposed to be testing whether a new pesticide causes cancer or kills all the fish?  How would you deal with interstate issues like acid rain or the seven states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the building of a pipeline?  It would make doing business in America virtually impossible. 

 

/Obligatory

[Week]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

/Obligatory

FYI - at least once a week or two - I find myself trawling through a page or so of your (assuming yours - LUMPY) photobucket.

Sometimes I just need things like:

http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/lasorda_phanatic_640_zpsz9hns0s5.gif.html?

I'm sorry and thank you.