Jump to content

US Politics: House of the Rising Sun


DMC

Recommended Posts

Real estate transactions are public, it's the shell companies that hide the buyers.  However, the Gardian didn't seem to have much trouble finding Hannity once they started looking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Real estate transactions are public, it's the shell companies that hide the buyers.  However, the Gardian didn't seem to have much trouble finding Hannity once they started looking. 

Yeah, you just follow the money trail, just like Lester Freamon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, you just follow the money trail, just like Lester Freamon.

And if Cohen is Hanniy's real estate lawyer, one has to wonder after the Daniels payoff fiasco, how visible of a paper trail he left behind.

i'm sure that will be discovered soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

However, I would say that absolutely, there shouldn't be some sort of publicly available ledger of all the investments people have made. That's bordering on 1984-level shit. Do you think that there should be a a public ledger documenting all of the purchases people make? 

There are plenty of ways to tighten up loopholes in regulations surrounding investments without completely taking away any element of privacy. 

It's not needed for everyone, just those in positions of power to show there is no conflict of interest.

A register of all of your private holdings is mandated in Australian law for all people in public office, for instance. It's publicly available and failure to keep it updated is grounds for losing your place in parliament.

Here it is freely available to everyone. Nobody is exempted; you can, for instance, look at the enormous holdings of our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions.

America's failure to make their politicians transparent is one of the many reasons you now have Trump.

Here's another failure of America: according to 538, looking ahead there's more pain to be had for the Democrats. Changing demographics will see their overall vote share increase, as it has trended since the year 1996, in federal elections. However, due to the utterly stupid Electoral College, they will find it harder to win the White House as the vote increases are unlikely to translate into state wins any time soon. It's a point worth emphasising: the Republicans have only won the popular vote once since the year 2000, inclusive. And yet they're now on their third presidential term. Nice work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I watched this New York congressman(?) named Peter King on CNN tonight and he was talking about a pardon for ...Jack (?) Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion who lost his title after being convicted under the Mann Act (white slavery, taking a white woman across state lines). He was asked if that wasn’t hypocritical, when the president has criticized so many black athletes. Colin K. was protesting police brutality, which was nonsense, King said, the police were the greatest protectors of black people there were.

Yea, and the best friend of people of color are the KKK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll repeat, once again, the US has a lower labor force participation rate than many other nations that have larger welfare states.

So, any hoary old conservative story, that it is due to entitlements is extremely suspect, not that I would want to contradict Paul “Numbers Guy” Ryan, and his superior Ayn Rand inspired command of quantitative information.

http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/work-requirements-for-u-s-public-assistance-programs-dont-work/

Quote

Work requirements for low-income Americans are back on the table in Congress and within the Trump administration. This is the case despite evidence-based research that shows work requirements are ill-conceived or counterproductive to helping low-income Americans supplement their monthly purchases of food, pay rent and utilities, and cover needed visits to the doctor.

 

Quote

Simply put, the evidence does not back up the arguments for work requirements for these programs and actually may be counterproductive. First and foremost is the false notion that the beneficiaries of these programs are able to work but choose not to. Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that of the 40 percent of nonelderly poor Americans with access to Medicaid who are not working, the reasons are because they are disabled (14 percent), providing childcare or eldercare (12 percent), attending school (6 percent), and for other reasons such as not being able to find work or being retired (7 percent). 

 

Quote

These misconceptions are partly based on the premise in Econ 101 that work provides no inherent benefit other than remuneration through wages, salary, and benefits, which in turn supports the faulty premise that workers must be incentivized to work above what economists refer to as the “reservation wage” (economics parlance for the lowest wage a worker would accept to take a job). Otherwise, this argument goes, workers would choose to stay home enjoying their leisure time—even though work is often linked with self-worth, providing more than purely monetary benefits.

I've always taken the view that having decent work was just more than financial considerations for most people. Seema Verma tried to use this line in order to cut benefits, but I don't think she quite understood the implications of what she was saying.

Quote

Another simplistic neoclassical economics theory posits that wages offered to workers are “market clearing,” meaning that the going wages for different types of jobs are determined by competitive market forces. If that were true, then supplemental nutrition assistance and other such programs would reduce employment, since those kinds of assistance could theoretically lead to an imbalance between what employers can offer to pay and what workers are able to accept. This line of reasoning leads to the highly questionable assertion that the federal social safety net is an impediment to the free functioning of the U.S. labor market, with negative outcomes for low-income families who would be eligible for these benefits.

 

Quote

This simplistic economic model does not take into account the actual constraints facing many workers in the U.S. labor market. First of all, so-called search frictions make it hard to find a job and empower employers to set wage rates that often underpay their low-wage workers. Search frictions play into increasing evidence of monopsony, where low-wage workers are not able to freely move between jobs and from nonemployment to employment, giving employers wage-setting power in the labor market.

 

Quote

Then there’s the question of harming these workers’ own future economic prospects by imposing work requirements. Research by Adriana Kugler and Ammar Farooq at Georgetown University finds that increasing the generosity of Medicaid eligibility standards so that more people were eligible reduced “job lock.” Kugler and Farooq find that states moving from the 10th percentile to the 90th percentile of thresholds for Medicaid qualification experienced increased job mobility, with increased occupational mobility of 7.6 percent and increased industrial mobility of 7.8 percent, with even greater effects on women.

This is one of the main reasons I don't care for employer sponsored health insurance. In debating Trump, Hillary was right when she said basically if we were designing a health care system from scratch, it probably be best not to design it around employer based insurance.

Quote

. Similarly, research from experts at the Georgetown Center on Health Insurance Reforms and the Urban Institute find that the expansion of health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act improved the incentives for entrepreneurship.

This really shouldn't be surprising as the ACA would reduce the risk of starting up a business. Losing ones employer sponsored health insurance to start a business is a big risk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s 2019 Nightmare

Why losing the House would be a personal disaster for Donald Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/donald-trumps-personal-nightmare-for-2019-is-losing-the-house.html

Quote

The Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Maxine Waters, a favorite target of Trump’s invective, could exercise its authority to investigate the phenomenon of foreign oligarchs laundering ill-gotten gains through purchases of luxury condominiums in hot markets, including through Trump-owned buildings in New York and Miami.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump’s 2019 Nightmare

Why losing the House would be a personal disaster for Donald Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/donald-trumps-personal-nightmare-for-2019-is-losing-the-house.html

 

By 2019 I think Trump's biggest concern will be moving to the Big House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump’s 2019 Nightmare

Why losing the House would be a personal disaster for Donald Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/donald-trumps-personal-nightmare-for-2019-is-losing-the-house.html

 

Polls not withstanding , It seem that there are an awful lot of voters alot who not keen on having the  Democrats back in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been addressed before, I often see conservative (I.E. Lies) articles on my Yahoo feed for whatever reason.

Scrolling yesterday I saw one from Fox titled 'Professor insults Barbra Bush on Facebook, may not be saved by tenure'.

Scrolling today I saw one from Fox titled 'Professor who insulted Barbra Bush gets applause from civil rights and literary group'.

I feel better about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Myth of Trump’s Unparalleled GOP Support
Conservative lawmakers fear the president’s base. But should they?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-standing-with-republican-voters-isnt-all-that-impressive?ref=home

Quote

As someone who lived through the Bush era, I can attest that Bush was able to impose pretty strict party loyalty on the right. But by April 2006, his approval rating among Republicans was hovering around 80 percent—not too far from where Trump is now. Those midterm elections were a disaster for the GOP. And it went downhill fast from there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The Myth of Trump’s Unparalleled GOP Support
Conservative lawmakers fear the president’s base. But should they?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-standing-with-republican-voters-isnt-all-that-impressive?ref=home

 

Stuff and nonsense. The only Republicans  who don't seem to like Trump are the old school conservatives and at this stage ,what they think doesn't matter , because in the end they will be forced to fall in line.   As long as the economy stays good, the Republican Party as a whole are not  to stand up to Trump and  the possibility of that will lessen if  Midterms go their way, which might also bring more  New Republicans politicians who share Trumps philosophy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The Myth of Trump’s Unparalleled GOP Support
Conservative lawmakers fear the president’s base. But should they?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-standing-with-republican-voters-isnt-all-that-impressive?ref=home

I don't really care for that article, as it provides very little proof for the central thesis that Trumps strong standing with Republicans doesn't necessarily mean that Republican Congresspeople must/will stand with him.  It's true that most of Congress is only loyal to Trump out of self interest, but self interest is enough.  Trump is far more popular than any congressional leaders like Ryan/McConnell, even though you could easily argue that McConnell has done far more for Republicans than Trump has. 

Trump's branding among the Republican base is very strong and very resilient.  Independence from Trump is NOT a selling point in Republican primaries.  Republican voters want Congresspeople who will be a rubber stamp for the President.  We're seeing this in primaries across the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Stuff and nonsense. The only Republicans  who don't seem to like Trump are the old school conservatives and at this stage ,what they think doesn't matter , because in the end they will be forced to fall in line.   As long as the economy stays good, the Republican Party as a whole are not  to stand up to Trump and  the possibility of that will lessen if  Midterms go their way, which might also bring more  New Republicans politicians who share Trumps philosophy. 

Trumps philosophy seems to be 'Stupidity and lots of it, and back it up with lies.' Do you really want to live in a country being run into the ground by a serial bankruptee and fraudster? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Trumps philosophy seems to be 'Stupidity and lots of it, and back it up with lies.' Do you really want to live in a country being run into the ground by a serial bankruptee and fraudster? 

So he's not doing all that badly for man who has never held an elected office.  Of course, if the economy starts to sour round Midterms , that could be a very problematic for him and the Republicans.    And there is the growing deficit,.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.

the gop midterm election strategy is to run against Clinton and Pelosi.

Ads are running all over PA already demonizing Hillary Clinton on behalf of gop candidates. WTF?  What are the ads's content?  Put Clinton in jail?  I haven't found out, and probably won't as I have to hit the airport later today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...