Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, ants said:

The article you linked said it was the reason people originally complained/flagged the course. 

See edit, and it wasn't people, it was one legislator, but if you read the actual letter, their main argument is not the anti-semetic nature of the course, apparently the course does not provide a 'balance of views' and 'does not highlight positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism & other religions'

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Edit: @ants Though I take back my snarky comment to your reply given the story mentions anti-semitism. My bad.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 5:59 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Does it matter? 2 elements take care of that: $0 payments/ premiums for those below a certain income threshold, and an opt-in system with universal acceptance and coverage of those who choose to opt in.

 

Two different things going on here. Medicaid and Medicare.
Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.
The 2019 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2018 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2019.
    $12,490 for individuals
    $16,910 for a family of 2
    $21,330 for a family of 3
    $25,750 for a family of 4
    $30,170 for a family of 5
    $34,590 for a family of 6
    $39,010 for a family of 7
    $43,430 for a family of 8

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

Back to the $0, that is how the plan was put into place. Shop on healthcare.gov get a deal. Don't by in get a penalty tied to the irs. One of you frekkers need go back in time and look at obama's original health care plan.  $0 with increasing yearly premiums. Never mind that there was a withdrawal of insurance companies from the government pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Seriously, I know I went on a bit of a sober rant and all last night but what do you people want from Democrats?

Did you get all rusty like Bender from being sober for so long?

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I don't think we've ever truly understood how little power Congress has until now. If the Executive Branch doesn't follow the law, so what? Congress has no mechanism to enforce that and Barr believes completely in the unitary Executive theory which means the Executive Branch can do whatever it wants regardless whether it's violating the law and it will be protected by the DOJ and OLC.

No, this just isn't true.  Constitutionally, Congress can avail itself of far more enumerated powers than the presidency.  It's simply since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR), they've deferred.  To a grotesque extent.  There was that moment when they passed the War Powers Act, overriding Nixon's veto.  But they've never really enforced even that.  The problem with Congress isn't institutional, it's polarization.

11 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.

Yep, definitely.  What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

But the polarization has become inextricably part of the institution of congress... there's no way to reconcile the two.

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

Fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, this just isn't true.  Constitutionally, Congress can avail itself of far more enumerated powers than the presidency.  It's simply since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR), they've deferred.  To a grotesque extent.  There was that moment when they passed the War Powers Act, overriding Nixon's veto.  But they've never really enforced even that.  The problem with Congress isn't institutional, it's polarization.

Not sure how any of this impacts my point. Congress may have powers but they cannot enforce them if the DOJ or Executive Branch says no. Power of subpoena? Great, except Executive Branch has ignored every single one. Power of hearings? Great, except Executive Branch has refused to show and when they have, they haven't answered any questions. Oversight power? Awesome, except when the Executive Branch, including the DOJ, claims powers that had never existed prior to this year like the insane executive privilege overreach that applies to any person who has every had a conversation with Trump or anyone in the Executive Branch, regardless of whether it was during the campaign, during the presidency, applies to a policy decision or not. Congress's response to that? Shrug. Conduct oversight on the Intelligence Community? Sure, but only on the things the Executive Branch wants to discuss with them. Congress has accomplished exactly zero oversight in the past year and half simply because the Executive Branch has refused at all points to participate.

Congress has the power to do things. They have no means to enforce it except to pass another law, that may or may not be interpreted any way the DOJ wants to interpret it.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep, definitely.  What's your point?

I asked

20 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.

To your question as to what my point is I will say per individual the government disagrees --- $12,490 for individual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Congress may have powers but they cannot enforce them if the DOJ or Executive Branch says no.

Yes they can.  The power of the purse is, functionally, more powerful than the power of the sword.  Congress is literally endowed to shut down the executive branch.  It's not the same the other way.  This is a pretty basic point.  If Congress actually united against the Executive, they are far more equipped in such a war.  So, while that's never gonna happen in this day and age, it's inaccurate to say they don't have that capacity.  Madison and co. specifically and explicitly made sure they had that capacity.

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I asked

To your question as to what my point is I will say per individual the government disagrees --- $12,490 for individual.

 

So...I still don't get your point.  You're arguing those between around $12.5k and $14.5k makes much of a difference because.....???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Two different things going on here. Medicaid and Medicare.
Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.
The 2019 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2018 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2019.
    $12,490 for individuals
    $16,910 for a family of 2
    $21,330 for a family of 3
    $25,750 for a family of 4
    $30,170 for a family of 5
    $34,590 for a family of 6
    $39,010 for a family of 7
    $43,430 for a family of 8

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

Back to the $0, that is how the plan was put into place. Shop on healthcare.gov get a deal. Don't by in get a penalty tied to the irs. One of you frekkers need go back in time and look at obama's original health care plan.  $0 with increasing yearly premiums. Never mind that there was a withdrawal of insurance companies from the government pot.

Of course you're not going to get insurance companies to sign up for $0 premiums. That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme.

Where you set the income threshold for $0 payments is important in it's detail, but trivial in it's principle. You agree there should be a $0 threshold  and then you debate where it should be. I would think the fight for $15 people would at least want it to be set at $15/hr full time job for a single person. But others might have different views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

So...I still don't get your point.  You're arguing those between around $12.5k and $14.5k makes much of a difference because.....??? 

Sorry you and I are not intellectually connecting via the internet.

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme. 

Programme, is that a uk word?

 

Edited by Clegane'sPup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Sorry you and I are not intellectually connecting via the internet.

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme. 

Programme, is that a uk word?

 

It's English. The only program in English is a computer program. You will note that I don't live in the UK, I assume you're not geographically challenged.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes they can.  The power of the purse is, functionally, more powerful than the power of the sword.  Congress is literally endowed to shut down the executive branch.  It's not the same the other way.  This is a pretty basic point.  If Congress actually united against the Executive, they are far more equipped in such a war.  So, while that's never gonna happen in this day and age, it's inaccurate to say they don't have that capacity.  Madison and co. specifically and explicitly made sure they had that capacity.

Right, so by this measure, in order to enforce oversight, the only power Congress has is to pass an appropriations bill, override a Presidential veto, enforce their oversight, then pass another appropriations bill to give funding back once their oversight is complete? Ok. I guess you're right, they're perfectly enabled to enforce their Congressional oversight.

Basically, what you're saying, is the House Dems can't do shit unless they have 2/3rds majority in the Senate or an Executive Branch that believes the law applies to themselves as well as everyone else.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme.

And you haven't provided any type of reasoning for why it shouldn't.

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Right, so by this measure, in order to enforce oversight, the only power Congress has is to pass an appropriations bill, override a Presidential veto, enforce their oversight, then pass another appropriations bill to give funding back once their oversight is complete? Ok. I guess you're right, they're perfectly enabled to enforce their Congressional oversight.

Well, no.  Congress doesn't have to pass an appropriations bill.  They can simply say they're not going to pass any appropriations bill.  We've had some experience with this recently.  Hypothetically, it's pretty damn simple, but..

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Basically, what you're saying, is the House Dems can't do shit unless they have 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  Generally, though, yeah.  You originally said Congress was powerless.  I was objecting to that.  Congress isn't powerless, it's the parties that are powerless to stand up to the president - whether it be the opposition or his own party.  That's a feature of polarization and contemporary politics generally.  It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the powers of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  Generally, though, yeah.  You originally said Congress was powerless.  I was objecting to that.  Congress isn't powerless, it's the parties that are powerless to stand up to the president - whether it be the opposition or his own party.  That's a feature of polarization and contemporary politics generally.  It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the powers of Congress.

You're being obstinate here. Congress is powerless because it can no longer function. It doesn't matter what mythical powers they're supposed to have, the fact is that the legislative branch is not capable of functioning. To think, that fucking ACA is probably the last major legislation that will ever be passed other than tax cuts. What a waste of a supermajority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how I'm being obstinate.  All I'm emphasizing is this isn't a structural problem, it's a contextual problem.  Everybody should be screaming at Congress to do their fucking jobs.  And that goes back loooooooooong before Trump.  But I don't think it's splitting hairs to clarify Congress does have the power to counteract, they've just been too feckless to use it for generations now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

For whatever reason, I'm picturing you swirling brandy while saying this.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  

I get the argument you're making, but if we're talking bold moves Congress needs to do, it will take a lot more than that. It's unrealistic for the foreseeable future, but eventually Democrats need to pair up with what remains of the sane right and initiate a constitutional convention because our country is so f''ing broken at the moment, and it's only going to get worse as fewer and fewer people are represented by more and more senators. Iirc, in 20 years, 30% of the population will be represented by 70 senators, and they will primarily be from red states. 

 

47 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's English. The only program in English is a computer program. You will note that I don't live in the UK, I assume you're not geographically challenged.

New Zealand, Wales, do we really need to squabble over mythical locations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not seeing the reason for the defeatist despair.  the operativity of US institutions is in accord with their ossature. as we have not reached the end of history, further developments should be reasonably anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't see how I'm being obstinate.  All I'm emphasizing is this isn't a structural problem, it's a contextual problem.  Everybody should be screaming at Congress to do their fucking jobs.  And that goes back loooooooooong before Trump.  But I don't think it's splitting hairs to clarify Congress does have the power to counteract, they've just been too feckless to use it for generations now.

By a strict reading of the constitution, yes. They have the power. But in reality they have none. Maybe the disconnect here is that some of us are pointing out that the legless man cannot use his bicycle but you're adamant about making it clear that he has one. The bike is useless and should not be considered as a method of travel for the legless man. Similarly congress is functionally incapable of carrying out their constitutionally granted abilities of oversight, so there's little point to repeatedly asserting that they could if reality was different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sologdin said:

not seeing the reason for the defeatist despair.  the operativity of US institutions is in accord with their ossature. as we have not reached the end of history, further developments should be reasonably anticipated.

You're a smart man. What happens to an empire when its elites prioritize their own comfort and gains over the stability of the state? There's either a reform to stave off the collapse or the grip of the wealthy movers of power is too hard to break and eventually it all shatters.

Which one do you think is more likely in our case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×