Weinered again.......

Anthony Weiner admits to sending more lewd images, texts but vows to stay in mayor's race | Fox News

The Tea Party has sponsored a primary candidate to replace Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, mostly because the Senate is barely functioning, as opposed to the House, which is completely non-functional.

I like McCain the maverick.

Behind the Curtain: The new power triangle - POLITICO.com

Everyone of the sorry bastards that back McCain on his consorting with the enemy can diaf right alongside the sorry son of a bitch afaic.

And they can take any & every bastard that backs amnesty right along with 'em. They're worse than dead to me.

Word. Took long enough for him to come back.

Hey, who isn't?

Jon is kind of like a real-life Ron Swanson, anybody ever notice that? "Damn McCain for avoiding government gridlock and getting things done! I liked it better when nothing was happening!"

That article reads like McCain is running for something soon and arranged a fluff piece. We haven't actually had immigration reform, or speedy confirmation of judicial nominees, or a long-term budget deal yet. So what are we praising exactly?

Nothing > something bad

(Borrowing from Molson's handy laundry list) Confirming unfit nominees, giving amnesty to criminals that ought to be given 30 days to repatriate themselves to their rightful country or shot on sight, and approving unacceptable budgets are not positives.

This is how bad its gotten that someone willing to work with the other side is thought of as a heavenly event.

I've always pictured Dale Gribble for some reason

You're adorable.

FWIW, I was already in close to full-blown vein popping rage mode at the fluff pieces I'd on that p.o.s. and some of his cronies just shortly prior to dropping into the thread. I actually hit the FOFC to try to lower my b.p. instead of raise it ...and stumbled right onto the same subject.

I just don't see what's so great about being "willing to work with the other side" when the practical effect is the same as if they hadn't.

Kind of an interesting vote today whether to limit NSA funding. The Republicans support the president on this slightly more than Democrats, but there's a split in both parties.

Congressional Bills and Votes - NYTimes.com

Provisions in the post pre-clearance NC voting law. What do they all have in common?

Pretty funny stuff here. The IRS Employees Union is asking all workers to submit letters to Congress asking that they not be included as a group required to adhere to the new Obamacare laws/policies. Link contains the form letter they're asking them to submit.

National Treasury Employees Union -- Ask your members of Congress to oppose HR 1780.

Favorite part is where they tell them in bold letters not to use their government e-mails in their submission. You'd hate for Congress to see that you're lobbying for self-benefit. That just never happens.

This will get overturned by the courts, right?

Just another data point on premiums.

Maryland Touts Low Obamacare Health Insurance Premiums

Of course. The thing is it likely won't get overturned by the courts before it has a negative effect in at least 1 voting cycle, which is what they're banking on.

All of these laws and means to restrict voting rights are really shameful in this country given our history.

Amazing to see how common these are anymore. I'm working with a group as part of the development of our property. They have four other properties that they are working on right now in other locations. They just put out the following for the other four properties in a listing.


Basically, they're hiring all staff for their developments in a way to avoid Obamacare requirements. I'm actually writing up a budget for our facilities. The main staff consists of a couple full time managers and a few full time nurses. The rest of the staff is all 29 hour shift managers and maintenance staff.

Four years ago, I actually created a preliminary budget for the same project. All of the positions were full time positions. We never even considered hiring people for 29 hours a week. It's amazing how this bill has dumped low and medium wage hiring practices on their head.

This is no different than that a lot of work has been changed to temp work over the last decade to avoid paying any sort of benefits. This isn't new and isn't the "Obamacare" boogieman. The only difference is that instead of having to sneak in people under 32 hours before, it's 30.

SI

We never even considered a 32 hour employee under the previous budgets. We were willing to pay those benefits. This is a different beast IMO and I'm not the only one changing hiring practices in that regard.

Also, some note that it doesn't take effect until 50 employees. That doesn't really change things even if you're under that number. You don't want to ignore the policy if you only have 38 employees and then have to go back and change your employee deals later when you hit that 50 person limit during expansion. You have to assume that your business is going to continue to grow and plan accordingly. I've already done so with my current staff hirings because I know that I'm going to reach 50+ in roughly two years.

This. Even before Obamacare this was particularly widespread in the casinos out in Vegas and in the retail industry in general.

When I worked at Home Depot 13 years ago they were transitioning from a company that was known for hiring specialists in the field to work in the various departments, pay them 15-20 bucks/hr that they used to build their reputation. In that transition they only wanted to hire part time employees to cut costs because of slipping margins, and intense competition from Lowes and Menards. It's nothing new.

It has been happening all over retail for years now. Frankly, it's Capitalism at work.

Obamacare has to be giving momentum to something that's already been a trend though. I'm just not sure that's a bad thing. Isn't one of the not-spoken-about goals of Obamacare to be another step in the transition away from the old insurance-through-employers model? Small business owners like MBBF are kind of being used as a tool to bring more people into the fold of government healthcare.

I saw a chart a while ago about the decline of full-time jobs, and it's something that's been consistent and steady since about the 70s no matter who was president or no matter what policies were in place. I see it more as an inevitability than just a categorically terrible thing. In the future, more and more people will only work 20-30 hours, and they'll need to rely more on the government for things like healthcare Hey, maybe in the future we'll all work a little less and get more free stuff. That might not be the worst thing ever. If we can get past the idea that every adult has to have a full-time job at all times or else there's something wrong. Maybe are technology has advanced enough that we really just don't need that as a society. The concept of "employment" may just become more and more a luxury for the best and brightest who have the most to offer. It makes sense that our society and economy just doesn't need as many people slaving away hour after hour as we did in 1900. That's a good thing.

Or they'll be more likely to hold down two part-time jobs, as most of my current staff already does.

Do you think the government should regulate businesses and encourage/require them to hire only full-time people, even if that makes no sense for the bottom line of your business?

And who is making the decision to hire them part-time? Blame big bad government all you want but you're the one writing the checks.

SI

Personally, I think that most of the gov't programs should not be collected at the business level. Pay the people their wage and then allow them to budget accordingly for insurance or whatever else they want.

Obviously, full time only makes no sense at all.

I'm not hiring nearly as many part time if there aren't bad policies from 'big bad government' that encourage that line of thinking.

I thought you were responsible for your own actions. Are you the one who gets to choose whether to hire people full time or aren't you?

How is this anything other than an illustration of "I'm hiring part timers because I want more profit and using the government as an excuse as to why I'm doing it"?

SI

Ah, this is fun.

Market rate is the ultimate decider. I can't tell people I'm hiring at $5/hr just because I want to make money. I have to hire at the rate that someone else is hiring for a similar spot. Obviously, that ebbs and flows depending on industry, demand, supply, etc. But when you have government mandating costs, that definitely cuts into what you have left to pay the wage and/or how you hire people.

There's more costs associated with government programs than just the direct cost. It's going to be cheaper to do it in the free market if you allow it to happen.

You are correct if you moralize greed. If the market is sacrosanct and say profit is the ultimate driver, then, yes- there's no other conclusion you can reach.

SI

There are also a lot more 'costs' associated with part-time employment than just those paid by employers - in most countries* part-time employee's generally lean on state provisions for benefits (whether healthcare, income, pension or housing related) to make up for their lack of provision through their employer ...

I've seen many employers moan about being costs of employees being forced upon them - however I'd argue that its fairer they pay that then force those costs to be paid by the rest of society just so they can reap a profit.

*This is definitely the case in England, I've heard that its also the case in America as Walmart employ part-time specifically to avoid having to provide healthcare etc. - however I have less knowledge regarding the US side of things.

You mean socialize the loss, privatize the profits, and then complain about the government?

SI

That's why I'm not sure this isn't an intended part of Obamacare. It's just kind of a funny mechanic, to use the MBBFs of the world to push more people into government healthcare and other government benefits. MBBF thinks he's giving the middle finger to the government, but in reality, he's making the government bigger, and strengthening arguments for increasing the minimum wage.

I can summarize your statement by saying 'hold people accountable for their own actions and allow them to reap the benefits of their hard work', but of course that immediately gets sent into the 'you aren't interested in the common good' pile, which isn't the case.

There is no reasonable nor justifiable argument for that.

None.

I agree with accountability - that's why I believe in corporations paying taxes to the government of the countries they operate within rather than dodging their responsibilities.

Why should corporations pay taxes - simply put they rely on the countries government subsidised infrastructure (education, road infrastructure, policing etc.) and as such should contribute towards its upkeep and future.

(I also believe in corporations not being subsidised to employ people when they're reaping huge profits already - ie. Oil corporations, Walmart etc.)

If the Administration was more devious, I'd say they were trying to insure that Single Payer Healthcare was going to happen within the next 20 years due to disapproval of business tactics in the wake of Obamacare. Because it really does seem that this is going to backfire on businesses and have people demand a 'public option' on exchanges (when middle class folk will have to go on the exchanges, then all of a sudden they'll be all for it - when its just seen as the poor's alone, then its socialism, when its then, then its for fairness ;)) and the rest.

I am mixed about this but leaning towards Obama not doing this. I guess to me it depends on how bad the pensions would be hit and would prefer the upper end pensioners to take the hit more than the average joe. The precedence would be scary.

Can someone explain if state workers typically get pension vs social security as alluded to below?

Detroit bankruptcy: Retirees ask Obama, Congress for pension help - Encore - MarketWatch

Maybe the other AFL–CIO members should bail them out. Or GM.

Why is that?

I don't see any culpability from the pensioners especially if investing in pension plan is the norm vs social security for state employees.

I don't understand (maybe no one knows yet) the degree of reduction. 5-10% sure, if it becomes 50% its a different story for me.

The story states pension average of $30K. I don't find this excessive. However, I'm willing to bet there are some upper end state pensioners getting much more, so if possible, would prefer to target them first.

If everybody was promised a pension based on the level of effort they put into their careers and all agreed, why punish those who did more?

If you look at a list of a city's highest-paid employers most are usually veteran police, firefighters, and education administrators. And I doubt there's enough making even six figures to wipe out Detriot's debt-problem if you disproportionately went after them. And there's something a little off-putting about treating a career public servant like an evil CEO or something. The difference between well-paid and low-paid public employees is a lot less than it is in the private sector.

Whether right or wrong, bigger bang for the buck by targeting the upper end pensioners.

I think the argument is not what is contractually agreed to but who can do with less to lessen the pain that don't have as much.

I think you are right, I have not been able to find info on the count/spread of the pensions other than the $30K in the article ...

There are some outliers, but probably not enough to make a significant difference.

If it's all one team, then everybody should do with less equally.

So, when you employ a person, you assume complete responsibility for that person?

It's a nice thought. It used to work in Japan, but at a high cost. Loyalty works both ways.

But in a society based on individualism and freedom, it's not really fair to ask businesses to assume those costs for people who aren't required (or even expected, these days) to lift a finger once the work day ends. Or stick around once they're trained, at your expense. Or even not to say nasty things about you on Facebook.

Ask what you can do for your company, not for what your company can do for you.


Or, in many cases, hiring part-timers because margins are tight and it can make the difference between solvency and depending on government programs yourself.

The government has made a material decision to reward companies for job-sharing. It's cynical, but it will lower unemployment if the number of businesses remains constant. And those who only work half-time will become more dependent on government programs, meaning more votes for Big Government.

There's fallout when you try and eliminate your manufacturing sector, as the government has done. We're experiencing it now, and it will become worse. Blaming corporations for acting on the behalf of their stockholders is a rather strange exercise.

We could place corporations under more and more government control, but then people wouldn't necessarily invest in them. There's the occasional Ben and Jerry out there, but that's the luxury of tapping into certain niche markets - we can't all do that.

There needs to be a balance when enacting regulation. Too much, and your government is running everything (rather unfairly). Merit means nothing and even your best workers have little incentive. Too little, and you get cruise ships and beef that tastes like feet.

Not to sound Clintonian but it depends on what you mean by equally. I think you are saying equally = % wise.

I would theorize the need to establish a baseline fixed living wage for pensioners and its the amount above it that should be equally reduced % wise.

No, I don't know what the amount is.

I don't get this line of thinking at all. Shouldn't those who put more years of their lives into public service have more to show for it afterwards, or at least, face the same proportional reductions as others?

The people who had the smallest pensions aren't necessarily the poorest, so this wouldn't even really make sense if the goal was to line all the debtors up by personal net worth and pay the poorest first. A lot of people have small public pensions just because they only spent a short time working in public service.

See above for my response to first paragraph.

Good point on the second if one can get a pension after 5 years of state service. My guess is majority have done their min (20 years?) for be eligible for pension. Let me know if you know this is incorrect assumption.

I think it's usually 5 years, I'm not sure what Detroit's system is. But it's an incorrect assumption that someone's employer pension is necessarily their entire retirement income. Many people have public pensions + 401(k)s and Roths that were funded from private employers.

Regardless though, Detroit is just another deadbeat debtor here, do they really have a dual responsibility of wealth re-distribution in this role? Do bankruptcy courts entirely fulfill the smallest debts first and then leave the bigger debtors hanging? Why should things be different here? Edit: Even if bankruptcy courts were taking on a dual wealth-redistribution role, those smaller creditors aren't necessarily poorer individuals.

I think we can extrapolate that employer pension is the vast majority of their retirement income. If the pensioners did not have access to 401k and employer matching, would that change your mind?

If these pensioners could have done social security (don't know) but decided on pension then I will concede they were culpable for their situation. I don't know.


Let's level set and state some assumptions so I know where you are coming from
(1) do you agree that likely vast majority of pensioners are not culpable for Detroit going broke?
(2) do you agree with my assumption that these pensioners had to go with Detroit pension system vs social security?

Yes, and I definitely don't think school principles, lawyers, and enginneers who put 30 years in are more at fault than 10-year secretaries, so they shouldn't be penalized for their service and enhanced responsibilities.


I think that's true of police officers, but not anyone else. (sometimes teachers have to make that deal, but I don't know if they did in Detroit). I don't think city secretaries are forgoing social security to take a job with a city agency. Or at least, I hope they're not. If they did, then yes, it's a different analysis, as it is with police officers. I wouldn't have a problem with the feds "bailing out" Detroit to the extent of making screwed police officers and other employees retroactively eligible for the social security they would have earned. That's be better than than some settlement that involved treating everyone like a low level employee with limited service time, even if they were well educated and gave their whole careers to public service.

Equally = %. Definitely.

For example -- Say we need to come up with $11K in savings.

If the pension for *FOUR* workers who did nothing but show up to work for 8 hours a day for 20 years is $20,000 and a pension for *ONE* worker who took out $80,000K in student loans in order to get a better job and worked 8 hours a day for 20 years is $30,000 and we determine that the people who did nothing additional deserves every penny of their $20,000K (0% reduction) and the person who went above and beyond and had debts and a different quality of life should reduce their pension to $20,000K (33% reduction) to come up with $10K of what they need, it's not fair. Especially if the person who loses the most is forced to go back to work or take on a second job to pay off the debts or maintain the quality of life that they earned.

If they ALL accept a 10% reduction, that would be 4*2,000 and 1*3,000 for $11K. The $30K pensioner pays more, just not all of it.

Alright Kerry, good luck, its your turn ... I think peace with West Bank is doable but think Gaza will be the stickler. Interested in seeing how this evolves.

Mideast peace talks set to begin after Israel agrees to free 104 Palestinian prisoners - The Washington Post

WTF? What's that supposed to prove? Were all the jobs supposed to be full time? OMG! Stop the presses! The government is saving money and using business acumen to staff correctly and cut waste. Isn't that what you are always running on about?

Did I said it proved anything? Did I say indicate it was anything other than a minor aside?

I actually found it interesting mostly because it was amusing to see the blowback aimed in the fencepost turtle's general direction. Not everything is meant to be decisive political commentary, sometimes shit is just worth two seconds of amusement.

Although if paying f'n phone bankers over $15/hr seems like "cutting waste" to you, well, there might be an issue there.

I thought you always paid what the market would bear? Certainly doesn't seem like that great a wage for boring, no skill work with little to nothing in benefits. I would imagine that you would need to pay a decent wage to keep turnover fairly low, otherwise you are spending more time and resources on training instead of the phone skills and knowledge that is required to make someone a solid phone worker. I don't think your everyday burger flipper would be cut out for that type of work.

One of the larger (non-governmental) employers here in Athens is a call bank. Low-end boiler room kind of deal.

Min wage, with small bumps for longevity. Their waiting list of employees is long, it's dull but non-demanding & the college students beg for the jobs to avoid waiting tables.

$15/hr. is WAY too much for that position. Hell, for that amount, they could have paid them $10/hr. and given them health benefits.

According to this website:

http://www1.salary.com/Call-Center-R...nd-Salary.html

Median Pay for a Call Center Rep is $29,178/yr.

There are 2080 (40*52) hrs in a work year. That's no days off, short weeks, or breaks. Even with that high number the average pay works out to $14.03/hr.

So it sounds pretty much right in the middle to me.

And the call center is in Cali so there's probably a bit of a COLA there.

I always thought midwest college towns were great places to put call centers for high quality, lower wage labor. Even with the higher turnover, you should be able to train people up quicker.

SI

Aren't you going to get a different caliber of worker when you cut wages by 33%? Even with benefits?

SI

Not at all. Higher salary doesn't get a better caliber of worker, especially in this economy. Quality workers will come out for less pay in this climate because they're so desperate to find work.

Right. But doesn't that hurt your argument that companies would pay more if there weren't so many regulations?

Pay is relative to two things: the market and how you'd like to be paid. The market is a supply vs. demand depending on the economy.

How you'd like to be paid is a different situation. For example, I can pay you:

$15/hour

or

$13/hour + health benefits

You'd be shocked how many people take the $15/hour even though the one with included benefits is often the better deal for them. I'm paying extra costs in that second scenario that they don't have to pay, but there's a lot of people that take that $15/hour and then don't budget for something like health insurance. It's usually better for me in the first scenario as a business owner.

I made 15 an hour at an inbound call center in Tempe. If they would have offered me 12 plus benefits, I'd have preferred that, especially if those benefits included a 401(k) or shares of stock.

The Christie/Paul fight sure is fun.

Christie's latest:

Same article...

Paul brushed off that suggestion during his interview with Blitzer, pointing to military bases on Kentucky soil as the primary recipient of federal funds.

It was one line down in the article I read so I could see how you might have missed the explanation.

EDIT: Not saying Rand Paul is the answer, he's not, but Christie is about as fiscally conservative as the Democrats so I will gladly take Paul over him in this fight.

Ya, I've never understood that point. The fed isn't allowed to pick and choose states to fund, the people, businesses, and federal government agencies in each state are going to have different fed spending/fed taxing ratios because of the wealth of the people, type and number of business, and presence of military and other agencies. On this board (and I'm sure elsewhere), the point of the argument is that if you live in one of these loser states, you're not allowed to have an opinion about federal efficiency or corruption, even if you personally have absolutely nothing to do with any spending and taxing discrepancy. (And even if you personally pay enough taxes to where you're a "fed donor" under that formula). I mean, under that logic, if I make more money than you, my opinion about government matters more, because I pay more taxes. Maybe Kentucky should lose some electoral votes if their tax payers aren't contributing enough?

Agree completely Molson. And thanks to JPhillips for getting me started on this whole Christie/Paul "feud" but here is my understanding of the debate and I would love to hear somebody (maybe JiMGa) defend the Christie side.

So Rand Paul feels like the NSA/Patriot Act/etc is a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. There is a reasonable argument to be had on the other side which is made by people like President Obama who say there is a security threat not understood back when the constitution was written. The gray area (IMO) is where does the security threat end and panerd's privacy begin.

Christie's reaction: Called Paul and people with similar beliefs esoteric. Have a debate over the founding principles of this country apparently is not something worth his time or that anyone cares about. USA! USA! USA! America!

I have been involved in debates on FOFC about the 4th amendment and privacy and agree with a lot of the other side of the issue and have had some members agree with me. Christie just says its a non issue that isn't worthy of his time.

Uhh, you guys are too hung up on substance here. I don't really care about who wins as either of them would implement policies I disagree with. I just find the feud fun. If I posted yesterday I would have used Paul's "King of Bacon" remark, clearly jabbing at Christie's weight.

I know you're not digging into the substance of this in the context you brought it up, but Christie was, and it comes up all the time here. It's just a weird role-reversal, when a liberal, or in this case a moderate Republican, basically just brags about how rich he is and insults someone else for being poor. And the thing is, a lot of the conservatives who are the target of this line of argument probably wouldn't mind too much if the fed cut healthcare and welfare and social security spending to their state, it certainly wouldn't effect them. Military spending, of course, many would love to spend more on, though not all. And that's pretty much the big 4 fed spending categories that fit into ratio against fed income (which is based entirely on how many rich people you have in a state, and New Jersey has a lot.)

As if New Jersey doesn't have military bases ;). Really, you can't put bases in New York City, so Jersey has a number of them.

Here is the fun part:
List of United States Army installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of United States Marine Corps installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of United States Navy installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._installations

New Jersey has 2 Army bases (Fort Dix & Picatinny Arsenal). Kentucky has 3 Army bases (Blue Grass Army Depot, Fort Campbell, Fort Knox)

New Jersey has 2 Naval Bases: NWS Earle, NAES Lakehurst; and 1 Air Force Base: McGwire Air Force Base and 1 National Guard Air Base: Atlantic City Air National Guard Base. Kentucky has no Naval but has a Marine attachment at Fort Knox, and an Air National Guard base as Lousiville (but no Air Force Bases).

So basically, Paul is full of shit. Also wouldn't a Libertarian arguing for lesser government also want less military as well?

Man, the GOP House side folks are really frayed right now, looks like they can't get anything through.

THUD bill is pulled as GOP budget frays - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Yes he does. It may not make the Paul's very popular but I would think that is both Rand and Ron's either #1 or #2 campaign issues. I am pretty sure he isn't going to be allowed to shut down all of Kentucky's bases based on ideology though.

There is plenty that the Paul's (especially Rand) can be called out on but I wouldn't go with the standard "For smaller government but not a smaller military" line used against the GOP because both of the Paul's are right there with the most liberal democrats on our foreign policy.

Therefore I'd argue Christie's dig was right on the money.

I can see where this is true in some industries but in other industries, higher salary will get you better caliber of worker even in this economy.

No doubt. I think the term "Bread and circus" was originally from the Romans but to hear a politician admit openly that people who care about issues like the Constitution are basically such a small segment of the voters that he doesn't need to be bothered with them just proves why the GOP will probably not control the presidency for any time in the foreseeable future. Paul appeals to a segment of the party that a frontrunner like Christie would just rather ignore. (A segment of the party that could grow from disgruntled Democrats IMO) Statements like his coming from a Democrat seem like a good rip but from a Republican just another nail in the coffin of the dying Republican party.

So the THUD bill went... thud?

SI

I'll give you Ron, but Rand surely doesn't sound like he wants to cut the military.

I'd argue Rand Paul's calling people who are asking for money for rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy as "gimme, gimme, gimme" folks will have a MUCH bigger negative effect than a politician not caring about privacy concerns (when's the last President that we've had who did?). Paul just sounds fucking heartless.

Since this board often wants to look at the political side of things and not the moral/ethical side of things I can't think of anything that would play better to Kentucky voters than the way Paul is being portrayed on this issue. What you are saying isn't exactly what happened (Paul was critical that Gov Christie saw no need to want any federal spending cuts to replace his request for disaster relief) but it still works in Paul's favor nonetheless.

Again I don't care about defending Rand as much as I did when Ron was misinterpreted/misquoted and I have serious reservations about Rand the politician playing the "game" by backing Romney etc but he most certainly wants to cut the military significantly. Much like his father he feels like we can still maintain the national defense without the overseas national offense. (Which is the significant part of the budget) In fact his stand on this issue seems to almost match exactly with what Obama the '08 candidate/Nobel Peace prize winner campaigned on.

Foreign Policy and National Defense Rand Paul | United States Senator

This is one area where he seems to be carrying his father's torch. (Though I certainly concede if he were placed in an even higher office I don't see him having quite the integrity of his father in sticking with his plan to scale back the military)

I'm talking more in Presidential aspirations if you are looking political. Obviously this back and forth partially is looking forward to 2016.

Well again I don't see him winning New York, California, or New Jersey and don't see him losing Texas, Mississippi, or South Carolina. So IMO whether it will hurt him or not in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania is it will help.

I don't think its necessarily smart to write off the entire North East in a Republican Primary, but YMMV.

Bummer. Sometimes I wonder if we really needed Nixon to open up China. Wouldn't it have been better if China was still stuck in the 19th century?

China’s first lady beats out Michelle Obama for best-dressed list, to cheers on the Chinese Web

LMAO - tell me you're kidding?

Somewhat facetious. But do think an argument could be made that (1) if Nixon admin did not open up China (2) they would not be in this upward trajectory and (3) where they seem to have benefited more than the US has.

I think the right thing directionally.

Snowden revelations force Obama's hand on surveillance program - First Read

I don't know how Reid can draw that conclusion that single payer is inevitable? I assume he means government single payer covering the basics but with options for "premium/additional" insurance like in other countries.

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News

More principled conservatism in NC:


and

The realist in me understand he is constrained. The idealist in me is disappointed in him. The GOP in me says he should have set strong ground rules with the coup leaders. If it wasn't a coup before, it is now by default as the military is unlikely to hold free elections anytime soon.

Obama warns of further steps in Egypt, cancels military exercises - CNN.com