Not a recent article, but people who are really suffering at the hands of politicians.

Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law - NYTimes.com


Where Poor and Uninsured Americans Live - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com

We've already spent way more than that on some other things. We could be doing a better job of managing costs I agree, but the very same people who are against healthcare because of cost are for lots of spending in other areas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a60_story.html

I was shocked when Ohio expanded their coverage.

What a bullshit question.

That's along the same lines as the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Is that a strong argument, though? I'm solidly in the category of being against Obamacare (not health care) and the Iraqi invasion. But that's not relevant.

We could also say Republicans are hypocritical because their response to the Tea Party challenge in Mississippi was for Cochran to set an unofficial pork spending record. Therefore, Republicans can't complain about any waste of taxpayer money. I get it, but I think each waste of money should be addressed - no one group gets to claim all of the responsibility.

My question is relevant because public debt is a real issue. If we spend our grandchildren's money, they pay the price somehow. And if you don't bill people directly, either you have to pump up the economy (as we're doing right now) and double down on the debt or you have to accept inflation.

There are many, many worthwhile uses of taxpayer money. Too many to simply say if it's worthwhile, we should pay for it.

There is going to be inflation. There has to be. It's the nature of the beast. It's the desired outcome of a healthy economy. Now the question is how much is healthy? Deflation isn't the answer.

Personally speaking the Bush tax cuts were always temporary in my mind. We had a very healthy system in place and while those cuts were helpful for a time they have become very damaging over the long run. Now they are to be accepted as the norm and further cuts are demanded.

It is the fiscal responsibility of the government to collect taxes to pay for things that benefit the whole and that the smaller states and local governments cannot handle on their own. It is the responsibility of the people to ensure that while they are free to do what they want they also need to be mindful to those who have very little or nothing at all.

I've said for years it's so easy to make money when you have money. It is. Life is easier. You can make an entire families income on interest and dividends doing nothing at all!

I have a problem with taking a program that works, but that some people don't like, and ripping it up and making it totally unusable. Taking a system that functions (or is designed too) and take a hand in tearing it down only to point fingers at what a failure it is.

Yes, spending money we don't have happens all the time. The amount of our national debt as a ratio of our GDP is large but not nearly as large as that of many well respected businesses here who outspend what they make in order to grow the company.

I don't want to be drawn into an income disparity debate, because it'll just sidetrack, but unless you are making more than about $200,000 a year you probably aren't paying anything close to what you are getting back from the government. The fact that the discussion about middle class doesn't even contain the middle 50% quartile of US families should be all that we need to say about income disparity and the direction of it here.

This kind of turned into a rambling grouping of statements, sorry for the lack of organization. It's all connected in my head, just can't verbalize it the right way.

I'll just leave it with this from the US Govt's own Public Debt site.


Economic growth will come. We will leverage it more. It may in truth come back to bite us in the ass. Pretty much every economic "pop" has had significant damage to the people. However, we've also tried to go back and fix those things that lead to the damage only to have them restricted by the people in power for one reason or another. They don't seem interested in really fixing the problem as in just perpetuating the disharmony.

The answer would be more expensive and a higher deductible. And it would've been the answer the 4 years before that. And the 4 years before that.


If they're getting a subsidy, then they're getting cost sharing reduction on the deductible as well. And a low out of pocket maximum. Furthermore, the deductible doesn't apply for preventative or diagnostic care.

Your argument here is kind of interesting, because people have been complaining that the subsidies have been overly generous if anything. Also, ACA has caps on deductibles and out of pocket maximums, which is again interesting because earlier people were complaining that their high deductible plans were being canceled. Now the deductibles are too high?

The top 6% of individuals make $200k or more. At $200k, you're paying about 31.5% of your income in taxes. Which amounts to $63k. The government will spend about $6.3 trillion this year. At $63k per person, that means it would take about 100 million people making $200k to balance the budget. These figures include sales tax, so it's an attempt to be complete with the numbers.

So, I don't think $200k is accurate for the "you're paying your fair share" argument.

Let's divide $6.3 trillion by our population, which is about 314 million. That gives us about $20k per person per year in government spending at all levels. If you want to get to $20k in tax revenue, $70k in earnings is a more accurate balance point - which about 1/3 of people earning money make.

Of course, we have to account for the fact that only about 140 million people file taxes and show income. Most who don't are children, spouses who exclusively raise children, the disabled, etc.

But, the remaining 175 million still generate tax revenue through purchases. And those purchases help stimulate the economy every bit as much as purchases from earners.

So calling this a nation of taxpayers and 47%ers, or whatever it was that Romney gaffed with during the campaign, is a relatively useless argument.

Is it better to divide total spending by 140 million, giving you an estimate of total earner income? I'll try that. Now we have a government spending burden of $45k per earner and we're up around $157k in earnings per family. Now that's just 1/6 of MFJ families.

And then we're still not even getting into the argument about justifications for specific spending items. What is government waste? We'd all define it differently. How do we balance for people paying for services they don't need if they earn income? How do we balance for people like me who consume more infrastructure because we live more in the country? Or people who live in urban centers and consume more in other services?

It would take a Ph.D. thesis to analyze this properly, but I'm comfortable saying that we could lower the tax rate if every family had an earner at the 50% level. Which is, of course, completely unrealistic.

We agree that people in power tend to try and preserve their power through dysfunctional leadership. Neither party seems to have an upper hand when it comes to dysfunction.

As for inflation, yes, things work well when there's a small amount. But if you look at the changes in debt rate and money printed during Obama's presidency, you will see some differences we've never seen before. We'd have Carter-level inflation if the Fed weren't propping up this house of cards.

Inflation isn't a problem. The Fed is a lot smarter than people give it credit for. They've learned from a lot of past mistakes.

You're a "Hillary Democrat" and you voted for McCain? Do you really think there would have been a lot of similarity in those two hypothetical administrations?

Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan consider Obama a moderate. Do you really think he's far left?


The trendline is hard to argue against (though I'm sure someone will).


It cites data and sources. If you're so certain the impacts are negative, show your proof. I'm guessing there's no source that would convince you, should it show positive impacts of the PPACA


We've spent $1.4 trillion on the F-35 program so far, for a plane that's grounded every other week for fuel leaks, engine fires and thunderstorms. Oh, and it can't fly effectively in rain. I'd rather that money be spent on health care. Hell, I'd rather that money be returned as tax rebates.


Aren't you also a self-avowed libertarian? You're not going to agree that any spending is good spending, so the argument's a non-starter for you anyway.

Individual income taxes typically make up less than half of the revenue generated by the government.

Here's the detail, anyway:

Shit, I'll argue it. The uninsured rated since Obama took office didn't go from 18% to 13% as the graph is likely to suggest. It went from 14% to 18% to 13%. Why the fuck did it jump from 14% to 18% under Obama? And how did none of you graph making watchdogs not get that graph before Obamacare graphs were circulated?

Really? History is a bitch ain't it?

Dumb graphs are a bitch. :)

I believe I am paying more than 2010, but I think I am getting better coverage for things (like orthodontics) than I did before. That's largely from my company having grown and switching coverages (UnitedHealthcare -> Aetna) though.

I did get a letter in the mail the other day from Aetna telling me to expect changes in coverage stemming from the ACA. It didn't say what they would be, only that there would be changes. It didn't sound like they would be favorable ones.

Puts hand up - Sir, was it possibly because in 2008/9 there was a recession and so many more people were unemployed and thus uninsured ... as such as the job market has recovered more of these people will have jobs once again and thus be eligible for insurance.

Regardless of this even taking that into account Obamacare has decreased the number of uninsured people - however by 'how much' its debatable.

(as with practically everything at a national level its really difficult to tell the full effect of a single policy or decision because there are lots of factors pulling at them - one of the biggest problems with politics today imho is that voters decide their opinions on the 'now' yet the effects of decisions being made can take decades to show their full effects ...)

Here's what it looked like back to 1999:



A consistent upward trend. Note the sharp drop for 19-25-year-olds as the ACA provision extending parents' coverage to dependents up to 26 kicked in.

Really? I'm going to side with DT with this being, well, not the best way to phrase or frame the question. It sounds more like wanting to just throw the argument out than to actually debate it.

SI

Solecismic is arguing via a false choice fallacy anyway.

I explained why I chose to phrase it in that manner, but I can see why people might see it as a loaded question if they don't agree that the national debt is the single largest problem we face as a country, moving forward.

If you don't, that's fine. Maybe we should have that debate as well. Seems as obvious to me as others see the global warming issue, so, again, I understand why my question might seem more irritating than thought-provoking.

My thought is that debt is an issue of government control. The greater the debt, the less future value our money holds. This is a disincentive in savings and (this is what I see as the crucial part) increased dependence on the government to provide retirement sustenance. All while we know Social Security will need restructuring as it is.

People are not saving for retirement anymore. They're counting on the government to provide. And as long as the government is willing to incur more and more debt, that works.

Yesterday I was reading yet another bond request from the local schools. The superintendent is talking about another 30-year loan, and how taxes will probably return (they never do) to current levels in 30 years. And in the meantime we will enjoy more technology in the classrooms, athletic fields, a bunch of other stuff - all this stuff will be obsolete within 15 years, let alone 30. And that's great, but it is making fiscal decisions today and leaving the next generation to pay the bill. This is how government works these days and it needs to change at all levels.

Given how any dime anybody can manage to earn is taxed to death, not much other choice for a lot of people ... other than simply not retiring and hoping to die about the same time your last job ends. THAT is the new American dream, ain't it lovely?

It's easier than that - why doesn't the vertical axis start at 0? Common statistical trick.

Segue: I love the Blue Cross ad running in North Carolina right now that points out how much of our healthcare spending is on administration. That's mostly thanks to Blue Cross and how insurers have changed how we pay for medical care :banghead:

We need health reform, not just health care reform. How exactly do fix the former? Without it, we are still going to have to pay-regardless of how it's paid it (universal, insurance, private, ect.) for all of the problems that come with the big concerns we have today (obesity, diabetes, poor eating/lack of execrise, aging).

I've read in several areas-particularly in the public sector-that unions are battling over the tax on so-called Cadillac Plans-which employers/public negotiators certainly don't want to have to pay on.

I know there really wasn't any other option that would have gotten through, but I hate how "number of insured" is the standard for success. Health care reform shouldn't be this great for insurance companies, or we're not doing it right yet. As a country, before and after Obamacare, we spend so much more per person than anyone else, and still get a crappy product out of it. It's better than it was before for a lot of people, but it still doesn't feel like step forward when the insurance companies won so much.

For those talking about real health reform, what are you advocating?

The ACA isn't perfect, but since it's gone into effect millions more are covered, the spending on Medicare is about 50 billion lower than projected in 2010 and the overall medical inflation rate has dropped. Now the second and third items may or may not be due to the ACA, but they are real.

molson: I don't think the number of insured is the standard, but it is a standard. You can't discuss the benefits/detriments of the ACA without acknowledging that millions more getting access to healthcare is part of the equation. I'd agree that cost still matters, but expanded coverage benefits people.

Probably not, but Obama has governed far more towards the middle than his primary language seemingly indicated (Obama has done A LOT of things that his primary language indicated - like pushing for the individual mandate when he hammered Clinton for suggesting it).

And I think you (as well as other lefties who are in the Obama/Warren bent) kind of miss the distinction among the different kinds of Democrats.


Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan... :lol:

That's about as far as I need to go with that statement. Though, I realize Sullivan likes to calls himself a conservative, though, in the same way, Zell Miller still likes to refer to himself as a Democrat.

To back that last statement out, when Bill Maher (of all people) calls you out for it, it's time to abandon the fallacy:

Bill Maher Nails Andrew Sullivan - YouTube

I'd need another graph to show how the recession pushed the levels up to 14% to begin with, assuming that under Bush, the recession also likely pushed it up. Where was it before that? Less than 13%? Yikes.

Number of insured is absolutely a good statistic considering that one of the goals is to get people healthier, which should lower costs in the long run.

Sorry everyone, but I need to inject Lebron James into this thread

James’ return to Cleveland could complicate GOP

In other news. LeBron James and RNC Convention compete to rebuild Democratic Stronghold Cleveland from cesspool into viable living option. :)

Interesting read on one area's struggles with jobs and multi-national corporations.

Losing Sparta | VQR Online

OH. MY. GOD.

THE STUPID. IT...BURNS


Minnesota House candidate makes AIDS, 'Gay Agenda' campaign issues | MinnPost

They were getting care - it was just via emergency rooms and other poor ways of getting it.

We can talk about insurance and quality of care, but saying things like "millions more getting access to healthcare" is inaccurate.

Another question: if millions more suddenly have access to healthcare, where did all the doctors providing it suddenly materialize from? We also had a shortage of nurses before all these people suddenly started getting care.

Shhhh.

There's an inherent contradiction with your two statements. If people already had access to care then they were already being seen by doctors.

That's exactly my point. We have a change in how people are receiving care, not that they are suddenly receiving care where they were not. So stop saying "millions more are now receiving care".

Can we all agree that getting care at a primary care doctor is better than at the emergency room? And thus "millions more are now receiving proper care"?

SI

Emergency room care only covers a portion of healthcare. That won't include regular vaccinations, regular physicals, blood tests to monitor chronic conditions, etc. Emergency room care is great when there's an obvious problem, but it isn't good at maintaining health.

Saying a person is getting health care because they visit an emergency room is a total joke and an insult to those who aren't insured. The quality of care isn't even a comparison as to what is available to you with a primary care doctor.

More health care, better health care, always having access to ER for healthcare etc. eh, its semantics.

You can parse/Clintonian it how you want but there is a population that now has more healthcare options, be it thru accessibility, affordability etc.

Is it perfect, definitely not. Will there be abuses, sure. Will some people probably be paying more than before, likely. Will overall healthcare prices increase, not sure. But we have a chance to make it work ...

Its not as-if the prior trajectory was good either. What did the Republicans offer during in 2008? A tax credit. What did Republicans offer in 2012? Romney ran away from his platform as a governor.

I've frequently referred to the Democratic party as a "big tent", often, it must be said, when conveying my frustration that they can't work in concert.

Also, what's the pejorative analog to "lefties", so I can start using that.


OK, so where is the center of the political spectrum for you, today?


You know what the real truth is? We can no longer call folks like Sullivan a conservative because they are progressive on social issues, and if there's one thing the modern GOP hates, it's people being progressive on social issues, regardless of their other beliefs.

As the article points out, much of this is attributed to new Medicaid recipients going to the only provider they've ever known (an ER), them not realizing primary care doctors are an option, and lastly too few primary care doctors not being available.

All of these are solvable issues, with the last being the most difficult.

But since you're a known critic, what would be your preferred solution? Not letting poor people have access to health care at all?

Susan Collins is probably closest to it. Or Kay Hagan. Or Mark Pryor.

FWIW, the Daily Kos may actually have a decent chart, as biased as they are, re: Senators (this is as of 2011, btw):

Senate Rankings


Obviously you don't read Sullivan on a daily basis. You are talking about someone who enthusiastically backed an expansive stimulus package and actually has said we need a larger one. Has called for tax increases. Has constantly called for increased regulation. Enthusiastically supports the PPACA and has expressed the notion that the US should have a Britain like HHS.

Sullivan is on the center left and that's being generous (he is more left than he is center). It's the same as Bill Maher calling himself a libertarian a few years back, when everyone realized he was already on the left and continuing further and further that way.

Which is fine, but he's not a conservative. Moderate conservative pundits are Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Conor Freidersdorf, David Frum, David Brooks. Sullivan was among their ranks even 10 years ago (heck, he argued for both the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War), but he's gone far to the left of them.

Makes for an interesting "middle"

SI

Furthermore, since all those Republican "Moderate Conservatives" are ones that JIMG would love to toss out of the GOP, I think they can fit in their label :)

That's not enough close to what I'd love to do the most of them, just tbh.

If you put Nancy, Hillary and Harry in a room together one of them is the farthest left, one is the most centric of the group and one is the farthest right. That doesn't make any of the trio "conservative".

Leaving Sullivan aside for a moment (who I actually do read on an almost-daily basis), why are these positions not considered conservative? Is it because "conservative" means now "achieve the smallest government possible"?

If we make the case that the stimulus and tax increases were/are necessary to preserve the fiscal health of the country & government, isn't this, by definition a conservative action (i.e. "to preserve"). Or has our national dialogue devolved to the state that we simply state "any spending = liberal" and move on?

Why is regulation a "liberal" concept? Wouldn't an actual conservative want to avoid the negative outcomes generally associated with lax and/or too little regulation? Wouldn't an actual conservative want smart regulation designed to maximize positive outcomes? Or has our dialogue, again, ended up in a shorthand where any regulation is merely a step towards socialism?

Why is the provision of health care not conservative? Why wouldn't a "conservative" approach to the provision of health care be to do so in a comprehensive, level, and fiscally prudent way. In this sense, a "liberal" approach to the provision of health care would consist on extra-generous (i.e. "liberal") provision of cradle-to-grave services. But a conservative one could still (and arguably would still) look to cover all with a comprehensive approach that, critically, made use of standards, regulation (*gasp*) and economies of scale.


If you're arguing that in current American terminology the above isn't a realistic understanding of "liberal" or "conservative", then I'm with you there. But if we do so, then the fact of the matter is that both labels are now fundamentally meaningless, since in reality "liberal" now means "anyone not in the GOP" and "conservative" now means "mean-spirited libertarian".

What do you mean why are these positions not considered 'conservative'? It's like you haven't been following politics for the last decade. Conservatism has been about smaller government since the Reagan years, and it has been building upon that since the rejection, by the base, of George H.W. Bush.

You can't put the genie back in the box and go back to 1970s definitions of liberals and conservatives. That dog just won't hunt. And referring to those definitions to say things like Obama is really just a moderate Republican (not that you have necessarily said that, but others have) is just going to result in a eyeroll by most of the population.

How can conservatism be about smaller government when its same proponents on the political stage are also in favor of greater scrutiny / restrictions of private individuals' actions?

Are we being deliberately obtuse now?

I don't know, are you?

I guess the conclusion I'm trying to construct here is that "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless labels now. It's difficult to conclude otherwise when those who call themselves "conservative" are, on the whole, fiscally libertarian and socially interventionist, while "liberal" has simply become a pejorative to the point that even those who would have called themselves "liberal" back in the day (raises hand) won't now.


I believe you are arguing that the political spectrum is relative and malleable over time. Thus, the definition of a "pure Moderate" would be expected to move over time (and thus has moved rightward). And I'm fine with that. The problem is that you interchange the words "left", "right" and "center" with "liberal", "conservative" and "moderate". Thus, Obama's a lefty.

But shouldn't a left/right spectrum retain an actual center and stay constant over time? I guess that's what I'm arguing. And the point of that is to, again, point out that while the GOP has continued to move rightward, the center has been taken over by Democrats (which, yes, includes, but is not wholly made up of, "lefties").

The problem with allowing the spectrum to shift is that it masks the fact that the GOP has become less and less a party of the mainstream. So yes, when I say Obama has governed like a "moderate Republican", I am talking about a GOP of 20 years ago. But I admit that most would laugh because they're thinking of the GOP of today. But to then say that the GOP of today is merely right-of-center because the political spectrum has shifted, when in fact they're supporting more extreme policies than ever, is to give the party an air of credulity and respectability I don't believe its actions deserve.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

Um... why should an actual center stay constant?! That makes no sense. If political terms shift and move, then the center shifts and moves too.


And when they win the Senate this fall (as looks likely) and control the legislature, it makes little sense to claim they are 'less' a party of the mainstream. Unless your mainstream is Massachusetts...

And that's an extremely false construct, to the point that I can't for the life of me understand why you'd waste your time trying to build it.

It's difficult to conclude
Stop right there ... because you just gave meaning to those "meaningless" labels. Let's even stipulate for the sake of discussion that it's a reasonably accurate description. Just because the definition has changed perhaps vs 50 years ago doesn't make the word meaningless. It makes it difficult to use clearly if you're trying to compare modern socio-politics to what are now historical socio-politics but if you're talking modern apples-to-apples then the word is still perfectly useful.


Whereas the previous incarnations of the GOP (circa 50s / 60s) were a party that I had little to no use for and would not (and did not circa 70s) associate myself with.

That's fine, and I can agree with that. But then why do you continue to use "lefty" as a pejorative? Do you mean to indicate that you feel Campaign Obama and Warren are far left wackos? Because that's what I infer from your posts. More telling, you employ no similar pejorative for those on the right. Is that intentional?


I would caution against using election results from our somewhat-unrepresentative bicameral legislature as a guide to what's mainstream or not.

I think you doth protest too much. Lefty is a descriptor, not a pejorative and any issues you have with that are you own. We aren't talking about righty pols because they kind of don't exist in the Democratic Party, do they?

And not using election results to determine what is mainstream is the silliest thing I've heard of in a while.

I can agree with all of that.

I guess my issue is that both "liberal" and "left" have been turned into perjoratives in a way "conservative" and "right" have not (unless, critically, you add adjectives to "right", like "right-wing gun nut").

To me, that makes the usage of any of the four words somewhat meaningless for constructive discussion, even though I can see the utility, as you suggest, of using them as shorthand.

What are most words if not shorthand?

I can describe the blueberry lemon poundcake upstairs as "delicious" but does that really tell you a lot (other than the fact I approve of it)?

I could say "man, that Walmart bakery blueberry lemon poundcake upstairs on the center island of my kitchen counter is exceptionally moist, with a commendable blend of sweet and tart. The texture is particularly pleasing to my palate and the pre-sliced portions are well considered, with a half slice proving to be just the right amount to satisfy as either dessert or snack" ...

but in the interest of time -- both yours & mine -- it probably makes more sense to simply say "delicious"

Illegal Immigration Crisis:

Sorry, slightly off-topic, but for the record, I am in favor of the Obama plan requesting $3.7B to shut off the current illegal entry flood gates. The plan calls for some crazy ridiculous funding like $1.6B to house and feed illegals temporarily and $300M to tell Central America to stop (??) but overall, it's a start. Particularly the part where he's willing to admit that we are clearly understaffed at the border.

Hopefully this request doesn't die.

If Obama wants it then Republicans don't.

Sorry Dutch, but that's $1.6B too much right from the top.

Agreed, but its the next $1.6B I want to see us tap into. No way to do it straight up with a liberal president. You have to pay the "coalition vote tax" first. In the end its just fake money anyway.

Well, anyway: The Best Of The Dish Today « The Dish



The ideological placement scale is from Pew, btw.

You realize that's a 23 question, pretty simple binary quiz, right? It's entirely devoid of any nuance and makes you pick from two relatively vague positions and asks which comes closer to your views.

I did this quiz a week or so ago... and my results are:


I am literally as far left as they can go on their chart.

Agree or disagree? :)

Panerd's alternative: Stop the war on drugs. Stopping a policy that destroys these Central American countries. Instead let's give the drug cartels (sorry I mean Central American governments) a $300M bribe and continue a federal policy that about half of the states are working on their own to override.

Well, it is Pew, after all.

Are you surprised you're further left than Sullivan?

I don't think you understand fully...

I'm kind of tired this morning. Can you just spell it out for me?

Pew's Do-It-Yourself Poll is very flawed. If you want to do it yourself, you can see for yourself.

It isn't that puts me to the left of Sullivan (where I'm not necessarily sure I belong anyways), it is that it says I am the absolute farthest left pole in American politics. Do you believe that I'm as left as one can possibly go in American politics?

OK, fine. FWIW, I decided to take it and a) in no surprise I'm a Solid Liberal and b) yes, it's a poorly-designed test.

So, whatever.


Let's press the reset button on the conversation for a sec.

Let's assume a "standard" political spectrum looks like this:



If public opinion shifts rightward over time, as we suggest it has, does the resulting spectrum look like this:



or this:

I think both are too simplistic and fails to account for those considered 'off the scale'.

A center shifting rightward will tend to move everything a bit rightward. Those are on the far left in the original calculus will be considered extreme (and thus 'off' the scale), those originally moderate left will be considered left, and those considered extreme and 'off the scale to the right will be considered as part of the spectrum again.

In the future, of course, less and less younger people will be on the original far left pole as the center shifts to the right. After all, how many young Democratic Congresspeople (inc Senators) are in the mold of Bernie Sanders? Compare that with young Republican Congresspeople in the mold of Ron Paul.

This may need its own thread.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0FM1TU20140717

Isn't the correct answer here "it depends"?

As in, it depends upon what you're measuring L/C/R against.
Current average positions/values?
Historical and/or traditional values?
Definitions of L/C/R that are defined independently of any mass valuation (i.e. never mind what the rest of the population thinks, Issue A has either Left or Right position that can be taken, with Moderate being a position that hedges between the two)



I mean, any representation -- a graph, a percentage score, any way to plot your location on some spectrum -- is reliant upon the scale being used for the horizontal axis, right?

*In case I'm not expressing this clearly/very well, I'm thinking along the lines of how TV ratings are determined by what universe you're measuring. The same show can be a 1.0, a 4.6 and a 2.7 in the same week. It just depends upon what you're trying to measure (A18+ vs W18-34 vs A18-34).

I was basing the MS Paint graphs on this concept:


Which, btw, thanks for putting into understandable words for me.


So, with that context, what I'm asking is whether the liberal/moderate/conservative terminology shifts (and/or should it shift) as the average of public opinion shifts.

IMO goes back to the context of the discussion, and/or the participants in the discussion.

Let's use me for an example. I'm a black/white/right/wrong kind of guy. I'll pick out gay marriage as an easy topic for the illustration. I'm going to identify acceptance/approval of it as a "Left" (synonymous with Liberal) position.

The only context where I'd likely agree to a different labeling of it is if we were discussing something like positions relative to some recent study that showed X% thought this about it while Y% thought the opposite and Z% were somewhere in the middle.

THEN someone generally accepting of it (I dunno, say a reply like "thinks it should be legal, does not necessarily personally approve") could be "Moderate" in the context of that specific discussion.

Go back to my Nancy/Hillary/Harry comment a few days ago. If those three are the context (in TV ratings terms "the universe") then one of them is Left, one is Moderate, and one is Right.

Next Generation Left.

Lots of things happening around Obama.

-- Ukraine crisis
-- Israeli into Gaza
-- Iraq and ISIS
-- Iran
-- Afghanistan & Election results
-- Border kids

Not sure I've seen so much happening at one time before. But I try to put it into context. If it was one or the other, I still prefer today vs during the Great Recession.

YOU FORGOT BENGHAAAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!

IRS and NSA and VA and Obamacare. You left all the good stuff out.

The Israeli-Gaza coverage is interesting. All you see from the Gaza-backed side is pictures and stories about children and women (while Hamas militants hide in these neighborhoods), while on the other side, it's about Israel taking out tunnels, how Hamas allegedly rejected ceasefire proposals, the non-stop rockets in Israel by Hamas.

We're still in a recession IMO.

Agggh, you totally forgot that we have a College Football playoff because of him! Right?

Obama gets 'promise kept' for college football playoff

There is no opinion regarding a recession. An economic recession is defined as negative GDP growth in two consecutive quarters. That hasn't happened since 2009. Ergo, we can't "still" be in a recession (though we may be entering a new one).

With that said, I probably agree with your implied point. I would say we are (and have been since the 90s) in a period of stagnation. Real wages haven't grown since the Great Recession of 2008, true unemployment/underemployment remains high (this isn't a new phenomena) and any gains have been largely concentrated on the wealthy via the stock market.

The definition for 'recession' is purely country based - what is being seen in America (and has been for a while) is the effect of (1) more people chasing fewer jobs as automation/internet increases, (2) putting the rights of corporations above those of employees ... this depresses the negotiation power of employees with regards to salaries while increasing the profits of corporations.

(I'd argue this has been going on far longer than the 2k8 recession, however it was somewhat masked by people spending by extending mortgages etc.)

As for #1, we need to be able to adapt to technology and use it to our advantage. If we really can't find work because of technology, we're already doomed to being a 3rd world country.

As for #2, I'm not so sure. Detroit is a great example of "corporate weakness and employee strength" with regard to rights and negotiating power.

Detroit is a great example of a lack of diversification combined with inept local government.

Unions gone wild.

This


And this.

Detroit shoul dhave been so cash flush it walked through 2008, however poor leadership destroyed that ideal. The unions and their absurdity drove may jobs out of Detroit and the rest is what you see today.

Wouldn't the entire world become a "3rd world country" then?

Except it takes two to approve a union contract. Blaming the union in isolation is just factually and logically incorrect.

I voted absentee yesterday. Lots of interesting elections in the upcoming primary. Interested to see how it all falls.

Technology has always created jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs. The automobile and internet killed lots of jobs, but ultimately created many more. If we ever get to the point where the technology is so advanced no jobs are needed, then, great. I for one welcome the era of the robot slaves.

A Court Ruling Just Blew A Huge Hole In Obamacare

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that more than half the country shouldn't be receiving tax subsidies under Obamacare -- a ruling that could cripple the health care law if it's ultimately upheld.

The 2-1 decision in Halbig v. Sebelius is the first victory, in any court, for a legal challenge that says the tax subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health care law specifically authorizes subsidies in "an exchange established by the State," and the plaintiffs in Halbig said the administration violated the law by also extending subsidies to the in the 36 states using the federal system. They said Congress meant for the tax credits to serve as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges.

Defenders of the health law said that reading of the health care law is too narrow, and that Congress clearly intended for the financial assistance to be provided equally on all exchanges.

Two federal courts have dismissed similar challenges, making Tuesday's victory especially important for the challengers."

So the law could have just said that the tax credits ALSO go to the states using the federal system, in addition to the ones established by the states themselves. Oops.

I think it's a trend in appellate courts to rely more on the literal express words of a statute. My state's appellate court recently overruled precedent that said that a court would follow the words of a statute unless doing so would lead to an absurd result. The reasoning being, legislature can't pass unconstitutional laws, but they're certainly allowed to pass absurd ones, and in any event, it's not up to the court to determine whether a law is good, bad, or absurd. I really don't know if the result here would qualify as "absurd" under that old rule, (and I'm not even up to speed with how the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing that issue these days), though it's certainly not a result the legislature intended.

Edit: With a competent, effective legislature, this would be an easy fix. This kind of shit happens in state courts sometimes, and the state legislature just fixes the statute the next time they're in session. Of course, that's not reality for the U.S. legislature, so the stakes are so much higher. Which makes the federal courts way more powerful than they should be.

I read elsewhere that the intent of the sentence in question is apparently very clear, but due to the wording slip-up, there's basis for this challenge.

In which case, if it gets to SCOTUS, it'll be interesting to see if they'll go common sense or technical.

Also:


Yes.

In another ruling a 4th Circuit Court panel upheld the subsidies today.

They actually got something done?

Obama signs bipartisan jobs bill: "Let's do this more often" | MSNBC

Ho-Lee-Shit, a snowball in hell must be melting.