They're already working on it.
Printable View
They're already working on it.
Age and responsibility have nothing to do with each other. My sister is 22 with two kids, she's married, works, and does just fine. In fact almost everyone in her community had kids before they were old enough to drink. Before the last 50 years, most people did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
The issue is more people having kids unplanned before they're ready, and that can happen just as easily to a 30 year old. I'm 31 and if I had a kid right now, that poor think would be in some shit, because I can't afford it.
This can't happen fast enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by No One
You've made it clear, several times over, that your sister is odd and not like most people. You've went to great lengths to describe her as a niche member of a niche culture that is a sub group of one of the smaller religions in the united states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Basically, it may be naive but I'm not a big fan of kids either being a luxury item, a fiscal death sentence, or a way to inadvertently put your life on expert mode. Next to no one that isn't "ready" for kids wants them but they wind up with them anyways so the big question now is how to we not waste so much human time and capital by making child rearing less difficult than it already is and/or needs to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Everyone should focus on their careers and not bring children into this world until they are financially stable.
That's working great for Japan right now.
It's just a fact that people have less children as they get more economically successful. Yea, that is incompatible with the idea of endless growth in a modern industrialized nation, but that's how it is.
It isn't incompatible because most countries seem to be shifting out of industry as they become more economically successful.
So this is supposed to be an attack ad. I'm not sure how, but it is.
James
It pains me to say this, since it smacks of the "personal responsibility" crowd, but as soon as you have a kid, your life is over. Your life is that kid's life. Want to be an attorney? Don't have a fucking kid, dolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
I'd say never having a real job but a serious Peter Pan complex makes for a fairly effective attack ad. And perhaps you don't understand what is important to people in South Dakota, which is why almost everything should be handled at the state level in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
What you really mean is how do we waste someone else's time and capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
The guy has done serious work on climate change and is being attacked for it. As someone who is bearing down his 3rd freak weather event in 2 years (and accepting that hurricanes may become a part of life in New Jersey), I actually think it's a pretty shitty ad. Yes there are lots of 'energy producers' in South Dakota, but their pollution and negative externalities affect me. Pollution doesn't respect state borders. Unfortunately I cannot vote for either of these two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Let me get this straight. It's ok to ignore the obvious science of cyclical climate change, but it's not ok to ignore the obvious science of evolution? I just want to make sure I understand the ground rules here.
Also, how is being a cap and trade salesman "doing serious work on climate change"?
Cap and trade (or a carbon tax, or etc.) is a good thing. It prices externalities.
There is plenty of "obvious science" that says this is not cyclical and we could have done something about it but chose not to (generally consensus is it is probably too late to change things at this point).
You do understand that my idea would free people up to work more right? Also that we need more people to keep the economy growing so we don't wind up with Japanese demographic problems right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yes, I understand perfectly that your idea is just another form of wealth redistribution.
It sure is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I don't know why conservatives hate nature so much. Whats wrong with being safer instead of sorry with it? Isn't that a conservative ideal?
Whats the worst that can happen? They're wrong? It is a cycle? You prevented some pollution and some wild animals and parks are a little healthier because the water and air is cleaner? Oh darn, pussy feathers, we ended up helping some animals out and we didn't get anything out of it.
I just don't understand the resistance. Why are people so god damn determined to keep fucking shit up unless someone can prove to them that it is hurting them in this or that very specific way.
No, I don't like places like Cali that essentially tell people what kind of cars they can and can't drive, but there has to be some kind of compromise.
Would it really be so horrible if we were really wrong and we just ended up helping some wild animals out?
It takes big money to be clean, and that eats into profits. It's that simple, really.
What California laws tell people what kind of cars they can and can't drive? I just moved here and all I had to do to register my car was get a smog check.
Ryan: The California smog regulations are the toughest in the country. If you've got a newish car it shouldn't matter, but older vehicles and performance modified cars have a hard time passing. I'm not certain either of my cars would pass in CA right now.
You can't drive a ball of smoke. They're pretty clear on that.
Yea, California just has emissions tests - stricter than most, maybe, but that's it. NJ had, up until a few years ago, a far more comprehensive inspection system.
The air quality in LA and surrounding areas has improved tremendously since the 1980s, which has led to immeasurable savings in health care costs and other positive benefits. Of course, a company can't put those benefits on its balance sheet so its deemed "nanny statism" or some other bullcrap.
They can and do put it in the annual report. But no one reads that part.
Cali also has stricter safety inspections on cars than many states. They have a handful of little ticky things that make car ownership more frustrating in Cali than other states.
Secondly, was it cali that was letting factories buy up used cars to get their pollution allowances jacked up a bit?
Older vehicles should be grandfathered in right? You should only have to match a certain PPM of NOx, CO, and HC's with proper H2O, CO2, and O2 coming out of your tailpipe for your car's factory specs right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I can only speak for myself with regard to your questions, but I am completely in favor of stopping deforestation, saving endangered species, and other similar endeavors that not only preserve ecosystems but may lead to further advances in medicine and the like. But that should be the motivation, not scare tactics like human caused global warming. And because of that difference in motivation, the way you go about it changes too. Kids and animals, wild and domestic -- that is where my charitable contributions go, so I put my money where my mouth is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
You should get fitted for one of those orange safety vests and stand on a corner with a cardboard sign and a cup. You're doing the same thing just with more pretension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
The entire concept of government is a wealth redistribution. That doesn't make it Marxist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
That's an amazingly skewed view. That "govern" part of the word would lead most people to believe that it's about governing, which is far larger than redistributing wealth.
I'm for redistribution of wealth to help guarantee national defense and keep people from dying on the streets, whether from violent crime or starvation. But redistribution for the sake of saving people from personal choices that would make their life more inconvenient can get unsustainable quickly.
Once you extend someone a benefit, good luck revoking it down the line when you're having budget problems.
Ok, or I'll just keep going to work like I do and still hold opinions that we could make things easier on every one which ought to be better off on every one in the long run, instead of you that seems to like the "just be perfect" line of thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Take the "every one [sic]" out of it. I'm asking for nothing from anyone, and you're asking for a handout. It's not any more complicated than that.
Allright there Mr. Superman, make sure you send your kid(s) to private schools. And if your daughter wants to read Green Eggs and Ham make sure you get it from Barnes & Nobles instead of socialist filth from the Library.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Libraries are neat, and I worked for PBS for a few years. YOUR WEALTH IS ALREADY MINE.
So if your house catches fire make sure to not call the fire dept. and no help from the police if you ever get robbedQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You had better stop driving on those roads as well. You don't want to be taking advantage of those handouts
He lives in Delta City, all that stuff's already privatized. Totally cool man.
Would you prefer if I said that the concept of government can't exist without redistribution of wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
My point is that I don't know why conservatives pretend they hail from some anarcho-libertarian alternate reality like this.It's more pragmatic than a lot of people realize. Programs like welfare help improve social mobility and, ultimately, economic growth. It's not just charity or nannying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
1. Those are local government functionsQuote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
2. I've said 1,000 times that defense/safety and infrastructure are the only functions of the federal government acceptable to me.
Do they? That's the same argument we've heard about affirmative action. If it were true, why is there still a need decade after decade after decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
So state run "hand out" programs a-ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
This thread right here?
This is why America is shitty.
You're not wrong.
What part of what I said would lead you to conclude that things that aid social mobility should be temporary? They're long-term investments that reduce crime and give people a better chance at success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Greater social mobility does not mean everyone becomes richer, it means more people have the opportunity to move up, and more people have have the risk of moving down, ostensibly based on merit. The reason this is beneficial and ultimately leads to growth is as a result of the greater competition in the market.
Of course, for many reasons, social mobility has been in decline since Reagan took office and ever since. We've lost sight of the American Dream as a value, and replaced it with greed and territoriality.
You know it's not that the overwhelming majority of conservatives hate nature and it isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Yeah, we need to look out for owls/mind our pollution/etc. but there are also jobs that constitute a large group's only means of getting by on the line. I think, overall, a "conservative" is more likely to be concerned with those jobs than the other effects - and thank goodness for that, because idiots like me would be like, "Let's immediately stop all funding for logging in [x] area to save the indigenous rock lizard," without a shred of thought to the toll that's going to take on other humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Greed and territoriality? How about entitlement? Most greedy people also have some form of drive to attain their greedy goals. Greed is good. Entitlement, where people want something for nothing has been our unraveling. And it's why these social mobility programs fail. They are not designed well enough to ensure that people only benefit when they deserve to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It's up to the state. Do I want them here? Not at all, but the point is that that decision should be made at a state or local level where it can be more tailored to the values and needs of its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
It's not 1805 anymore. The federal government got into all these messes because, in a lot of states, "tailoring to the needs of citizens" meant "locking black people out of regular society." And yes it was economic as much as anything. This was true in 1790, it was true in 1861, it was true in 1961. I see no evidence that it would not be true today. If the citizens of these states were to build institutions to ensure that everyone is afforded equal rights and access to society, we wouldn't need the federal government to do it. But it is not the case.
That's the same logic that got us the Patriot Act. There might be a problem here, so we better get big brother to do something stupid just in case.
No it's actually not at all. Patriot Act was a hastily written piece of shit designed by tinpot tyrants to take advantage of their own incompetence.
What I wrote about was literally the whole of US history. Over 200 years of experience. We wouldn't have needed the Voting Rights Act, for example, if Alabama or Mississippi didnt spend decades working to keep blacks from voting.
edit: There are also programs where the feds put basic guidelines in place and then leave the dispensation to the states. That would be an option here too if you're that worried about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
To expand: The right to vote isn't worth a damn if there isn't an institution that works to defend it. If the state of Alabama isn't going to do it, and there isn't much evidence that they did or would, someone has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Right. I think we're editing past each other. That was where I was headed with the guideline edit above. Tell Alabama that they can do whatever they want with $XB, as long as they don't infringe on anyone's right to vote in ways, A, B, or C for example.
edit: For example, I would love to see a program where a poor person could basically be paid to attend a vocational school to develop a skill that is specifically needed in the market. Upon completion, they get a job and basically return the investment through income tax. But it has to be specifically focused like that. And there have to be consequences for failure.
Ambition is good. Greed is always bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
But not free day care so said poor person can go to vo-tech training if'n they have kids? You can't cherry pick poor people assistance programs so easily. It's gotta be comprehensive in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Most colleges/vo-tech schools by me offer day care for their kids, it's included in their tuition.
Really? That's excellent to offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
I don't have an issue with including day care, because the entire point is that you design a program that has a high probability of paying for itself. Giving grants to some dumb fuck who wants get a four year degree in sociology is a complete waste of resources. Imagine how many truly needy people we could send through a vocational program for that same amount of investment.
Early voting is awesome, didn't have to wait in line at all. Dear God, I actually voted for some Republicans...
This is interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/he...ide.html?_r=3&
This seems like a big deal so I'm not sure why I missed it during the healthcare debate.Quote:
U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 27, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.
The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.
Walton J. Francis, the author of a consumer guide to health plans for federal employees, said the personnel agency had been “extraordinarily successful” in managing that program, which has more than 200 health plans, including about 20 offered nationwide. The personnel agency has earned high marks for its ability to secure good terms for federal workers through negotiation rather than heavy-handed regulation of insurers.
John J. O’Brien, the director of health care and insurance at the agency, said the new plans would be offered to individuals and small employers through the insurance exchanges being set up in every state under the 2010 health care law.
No one knows how many people will sign up for the government-sponsored plans. In preparing cost estimates, the Obama administration told insurers to assume that each national plan would have 750,000 people enrolled in the first year.
Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: the Government Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.
The association, with headquarters near Kansas City, Mo., was founded in 1937 to help railway mail clerks with their medical expenses, and it generally receives high scores in surveys of consumer satisfaction.
Richard G. Miles, the association’s president, expressed interest in offering a multistate plan to the general public through insurance exchanges, but said no decision had been made.
“Our expertise in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be useful in the private marketplace,” Mr. Miles said in an interview. “But we are concerned about the underwriting risk in providing insurance to an unknown group of customers.”
To be eligible to participate in the multistate program, insurers must be licensed in every state. The Government Employees Health Association recently bought a company that has the licenses it would need.
The new health care law stipulates that at least one of the multistate plans must provide insurance without coverage of abortion services. If a plan does cover abortions, it must establish separate accounts, one with money for abortion and one for all other medical services.
National insurance plans will be subject to regulation by the federal government, state insurance commissioners and state insurance exchanges. That mix could cause confusion for some consumers who have questions or complaints about their coverage.
The federal standards will pre-empt state rules in at least one respect: the national health plans will automatically be eligible to compete against other private insurers in the new exchanges, regardless of whether they have been certified as meeting the standards of those exchanges.
The administration has promised to “work cooperatively with states.” But it is unclear whether the government-sponsored plans will have to comply with all state laws and consumer protection standards; whether they will have to comply with state benefit mandates; and whether they will have to pay state fees and taxes levied on other insurers to finance exchange operations.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents state regulators, expressed alarm at the prospect of a double standard.
“It is absolutely essential that multistate plans compete on a level playing field with other qualified health plans, which are subject to state insurance law,” the association said in a letter to the Office of Personnel Management.
Consumer groups expressed similar concerns. The national insurance plans and other carriers must be subject to identical standards, they say, or consumers cannot make valid comparisons.
“Multistate plans have real potential benefits for consumers,” said Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group. “But there is also potential trouble if the multistate plans are exempted from some consumer protection standards.”
Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.”
Insurers are pleading with the Office of Personnel Management to provide more detailed guidance.
“We are concerned that O.P.M. has not yet released rules specifying the requirements for the multistate plan,” said Jay A. Warmuth, a lawyer at UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.
Rules for the new program have been under review by the White House for three months, and officials said they would be issued soon.
How can the rules not be known yet? Shouldn't they have been part of the damn law?
Not if the laws say that this or that department needs to draw up the regulations. This is how a lot of laws are written.
I have always enjoyed your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
This is a very good post. Agree wholeheartedly. But it's all about striking a balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Fuck you, I love this fat fucker!
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...a-problem.html
Voting is now done. I went to City Hall, said who I was and where I lived (no ID required) and cast my paper ballot. Total time required between walking in the door and walking out again- roughly 15 minutes. As of now I can just sit back and let the elections happen, which is a good feeling.
James
Obama headed here today.
Obviously this is not where anyone wants him to be: we would all much rather have an intact shore and Obama out there in Ohio or whatever. So the question is, does this help him or hurt him? Is the lack of campaigning offset by "being presidential"? I'm think that there is little upside here and a lot of downside: he's basically "doing what he needs to do", if he was out there strumming on a guitar like Bush during Katrina (or touring car factories) he would get rightfully pilloried.
It would only have hurt him if there hadn't been a swift and coordinated response. Plus, Hamburger Chris has been gushing about him for days now every chance he gets. I think it balances out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Wouldn't continuing the campaign right now be seen as petty and self serving so wouldn't being a responsible president be the best course right now? Besides, how much campaigning here does he really need a whopping week before the election? Could he really pull an all night cram session and score that many more voters if he kisses a few more babies and shakes a few more hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Obama's doing exactly what he needs to do in a national emergency. To be frank, it's one of the few things I've seen that he's done exactly right.
Right that's what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
If he keeps campaigning, he gets killed. If he stops campaigning, he cedes extremely valuable campaign days to Romney. There's no upside here.
Besides, it's too cold to golf for the 100th-plus time in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
I'd think that making a demonstration of immediately helping people in a time of need which is being shown nationally is a much better campaigning move than showing up random places to make a bunch of promises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Are there any previous examples of a crisis situation popping up right at campaign time and whether face time vs. action affected the results?
I wake up this morning and see this drek online.
Mitt Romney set to win, maybe by a mile
Then at noon, PPPolls releases their latest OH poll with Obama +5 - and Obama taking 2/3rds of all early voting. The election is already over folks - Romney can't win without OH. Stop making it a story how "close" it is.
Also, Rush is saying that by campaigning with Obama - Chris Christie is keeping Obama distracted while Mitt runs off and campaigns. I can taste the tears already
There's really not. Anyway, I just am not sure that surveying damage and working with Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo helps with voters in Florida or Ohio. PA, definitely, but that state was already locked up for Obama a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I would like to think that people outside the real damage would go, "Hey, guy can't make it to our auditorium for a silly show because he's working on something that's actually important," but I should know not to underestimate large groups of people.
Especially if those people are Americans. Shit, people here in CT are complaining that Obama isn't coming here to survey damage. Assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Obama's got plenty of surrogates to campaign for him. He's doing the job that he was elected to do now. If this is the last big thing he gets to do for this country, so be it.
I'm sure he'll find some more photo ops between now and January.
hopefully he can be on time for his, unlike some people
Anyone who looked at an electoral map knew Obama was going to win months ago. The math has been in his favor since easily before the summer, moreso now. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama fan, but who the hell else am I going to vote for? Jill Stein? Give me a fucking break.
n_____n
What's bringing back all of these old members? g0zen!? Jimmy?!? Welcome back!
The magic of hope.
Change TNL can believe in.
Word... I haven't seen these people in ages...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
/voted for Obama
Bloomberg endorses Obama in a surprisingly fair article.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...te-change.html
I've never missed a TNL Election Thread. No reason to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
You missed making my birthday thread for a few years now. I counted in you for that
How many fingers could you engage in that count?
After the hemorrhoids? One or two, maybe. Before? Sky's the limit.
I celebrated it in my own special way.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I had the afternoon off, so I voted today. There was just a short wait, but it was not a big deal. I realized that I really need to pay more attention to our local politicians... After a few hours researching everyone on the ballot, there were some that I staunchly opposed.
sourceQuote:
Here comes the landslide!
By 'Baby' Dick Morris 10/30/12 06:33 PM ET
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working. The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Why would you write this? On October 30th, no less??
Dick Morris, reputable political analyst
Why does anyone still go by dick?
Your babymama sure doesn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
yeah, thank God for women like her and Cecilia!
On October 28, 2008, Dick Morris posted the same article regarding McCain.
The guy got dumped by Clinton somewhere around 1995. Seventeen years later he is still playing Bill's mixtapes and crying over the yearbook.
Can someone tell me how it is possible Romney can win? I was just playing with the 270towin.com map and it seems impossible. Even OH isn't enough if he doesn't win either NH or VA.
Are Romney supporters really hopeful for all three of OH, FL and VA?
This electoral math has been exceedingly obvious since January. The idea that Romney would deliver 90% of the swing states was always improbable. But yea, I think that is what they are counting on.
Right now http://electoral-vote.com/ (which I've been using for every election since 2004) has Obama with 281 and 42 ties (VA and FL). He would need to bring home Colorado and flip Nevada, or flip Ohio.
I think the craziest of the crazy seriously think states like Oregon are in play.
Remember too the media has a vested interest in making sure the election is "close." A 1996-style election doesn't mean good ratings.
Even electoral-vote seems a little Romney friendly. I don't think NV and NH are going to be a problem for Obama, going by Nate Silver's site
You've said that at least twice about Dick Morris, but it isn't accurate. You bothered to post the exact date that he published a 2008 article about John McCain, but you could have also invested a minute to confirm your Clinton claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Of course, the truth isn't exactly glamorous (resigning after a sex scandal), but it isn't like Clinton fired him for being a nutcase or incompetent in the basics of his job - the scenario you imply.
In fairness, Morris did seemingly go off the deep end after 1996. He's as fruity as Joe Biden.