Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

Here's what it all meant:

1. The public will get a voice before the secret intelligence court -- sort of

The way things work now at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the government asks a judge in secret for permission to collect, say, phone records. No one gets to argue the other side.
:
The idea is to make sure outside voices have a say -- voices that might not always buy into the intelligence community's arguments -- but who knows what that panel will end up looking like.

I like the idea. Probably needed to limit abuse of power

Quote:

2. New limits on telephone records

If you've been paying attention the last few months, you know the National Security Agency has been slurping up details on millions of phone calls placed in the United States. The agency isn't recording the actual conversation -- they're after stuff like the phone numbers involved and the time and length of each call.

That won't end, exactly, but Obama says big changes are coming. First, fewer calls will be cataloged. And analysts will now have to get a judge's approval to dip into the records. Later, the government will stop collecting and storing those records. Where they'll go is still up in the air, though.

I don't see why this is a big deal. I do think this would help connect the dots.

Quote:

3. Super-secret "we want your stuff" letters are changing

Remember the movie, "Fight Club?" Remember the line, "First rule of fight club is you do not talk about Fight Club?" Well, the government has something like that called the National Security Letter program. It requires tech companies to cough up info about suspected terrorists and others without so much as a peep.

Obama wants to change it so those letters don't always stay secret. He also wants to give tech companies more latitude to reveal information about what the government asks for. He didn't say exactly what they'll be able to reveal, but at least maybe they'll be able to finally acknowledge "Security Club."

Don't really know what this one is about.

Quote:

4. People living outside the U.S. get some love, too

Revelations sparked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden's leaks didn't just rile up Americans. We learned the United States had been monitoring leaders of some of its allies, such as Germany. The United States also doesn't extend the kind of privacy protections to your everyday Italian or Peruvian living outside the United States.

So Obama says the United States will take what he calls the "unprecedented step" of developing some privacy safeguards for citizens of other nations living abroad. That might include limits on how long the government keeps personal information and taking steps to make sure it's used only in very limited circumstances.

Okay, lets not monitor allies. Definitely monitor everyone else.

SirFozzie

01-23-2014 11:42 PM

So, let's see.. we have a double header of Republican "War on Women" stupidity.

Apparently, according to Mike Huckabee, the reason for the big push to have birthcontrol covered under the ACA is because “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,”

Normally, that would have the #1 on "Stupid Republican Statements of the Day" locked down. (It's basically a kinder gentler version of Rush Limbaugh's "Only Sluts want birth control").

But it got beat by the new book from Republican Representative from New Mexico , Steve Pearce, whose new book "Just Fly the Plane, Stupid!", had a section where he argued the woman's role is to voluntarily submit and the man's role is to "show up in times of deep stress, and take the leadership role".

And I'm sure the base will egg them on, but.. yeesh.. for a Party whose constantly having to fight off "war on women" arguments.. they're their own worst enemy.

panerd

01-24-2014 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2896360)

It's politics and playing to a base. Stupid and ignorant comments but intended for a specific voting audience. No different than multi-millionaire Democrats in Congress and on television playing to the masses with their "war" on income inequality. Rinse. Repeat.

Edward64

01-26-2014 06:45 AM

A new strategy in 2014. I wonder who leaked the memo.

Obama’s rough 2013 prompts a new blueprint - The Washington Post

Quote:

An internal White House assessment concludes that President Obama must distance himself from a recalcitrant Congress after being badly damaged last year by legislative failures, a government shutdown and his own missteps.

Obama has said that his fraught relationship with Congress, especially after Republicans won the House in 2010, complicated his ability to promote his agenda. But for the first time, following what many allies view as a lost year, the White House is reorganizing itself to support a more executive-focused presidency and inviting the rest of the government to help.
:
Senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer outlined the lessons learned in a three-page memo that Obama discussed with his Cabinet in recent weeks, according to several administration officials who have read the document.
:
A bid for new restrictions on gun sales died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Immigration reform, thought to be a priority for Republicans after their poor showing with Latinos in the last election, languished. A late-arriving budget proposal that included cuts to entitlement programs surprised and angered Obama’s base.

Even some of Obama’s closest advisers acknowledged that he sometimes appeared distant in meetings before the disastrous health-care rollout in the fall. The biggest national security leak in U.S. history, the first successful terrorist bombing in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and a worsening war in Syria piled more time-consuming issues onto a cluttered agenda.
:
This year, for once, began without a looming fiscal crisis. A budget agreement that replaces some of the money cut by the sequester has been passed, including White House priorities such as early-childhood education. Senior advisers say the deal may bode well for other modest legislative successes to come.

Senior advisers also say Obama intends to work with Congress to secure an immigration bill, believing that the Republicans are willing to cooperate to improve relations with Latino voters. It could well be the last measure of legacy-building scale that Obama will be able to get.

The rest of the administration’s legislative wish list consists mostly of bills that once would have passed with little debate or measures with growing bipartisan support. A farm bill, patent legislation, a federal minimum-wage hike and a transportation bill are areas where Obama’s advisers believe a partnership with Congress can produce modest results, even in a midterm election year.
:
After discussing it with senior staffers, Obama hit some of the highlights of Pfeiffer’s memo in a Jan. 14 meeting with the Cabinet, his first of the year.

“One of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama told reporters before the session began. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.”

sterlingice

01-28-2014 08:15 PM

State of the Union tonight

SI

Edward64

01-28-2014 08:17 PM

Raising minimum wage on government contractors.

Edward64

01-29-2014 07:09 AM

I was caught in the Atlanta snowstorm traffic fiasco so was in no mood to watch the speech, GOP rebuttal and the talking heads analysis.

Government backed private retirement plan sounds interesting. Healthcare comment funny. Although I believe we should be more welcoming of educated immigrants, leaning against pathway to citizenship but not sure. Get out of Afghanistan unless we truly have a partner. I think Iran is in good spot assuming inspections are allowed to continue freely.

In State of the Union, Obama vows to expand opportunity, with or without Congress - The Washington Post

Quote:

For the first time on the eve of a State of the Union address, more Americans rated his performance negatively than positively, with 50 percent disapproving. To that end, Obama announced a list of executive actions that he will pursue in the coming months aimed at slowing the widening income gap among American families, which the White House has called a top priority for the year. Among them were plans to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour, create a new government-backed private retirement savings plan, and speed up implementation of a previously announced program to connect schools to wireless broadband.
:
The exception to the combative posture from the White House was on immigration reform, which House Republican leaders have signaled in recent weeks that they could be ready to entertain. Obama touched just briefly on the topic, reiterating his call for a comprehensive bill that includes a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants
:
Then, after saying that the law had made changes for the better, Obama made a blunter argument aimed at congressional Republicans: No matter what they think of the law, they now have no choice but to live with it.

“I know that the American people aren’t interested in refighting old battles,” Obama said. “So again, if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, increase choice, tell America what you’d do differently. Let’s see if the numbers add up. But let’s not have another 40-something votes to repeal a law that’s already helping millions of Americans like Amanda. The first 40 were plenty.”

On foreign policy, Obama highlighted the U.S. military’s withdrawal from the long war in Afghanistan, telling the public that the country could maintain a small force there for counterterrorism operations and to train Afghan troops. And he implored Congress not to pass new sanctions on Iran as his administration attempts to negotiate a multilateral agreement with Tehran over its nuclear program.

JAG	01-29-2014 08:02 AM

He mentioned Punch Pizza in the speech last night, a pretty good pizza place that is within walking distance of my house.

Suburban Rhythm

01-29-2014 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2897955)

I was caught in the Atlanta snowstorm traffic fiasco so was in no mood to watch the speech, GOP rebuttal and the talking heads analysis.

Government backed private retirement plan sounds interesting. Healthcare comment funny. Although I believe we should be more welcoming of educated immigrants, leaning against pathway to citizenship but not sure. Get out of Afghanistan unless we truly have a partner. I think Iran is in good spot assuming inspections are allowed to continue freely.

In State of the Union, Obama vows to expand opportunity, with or without Congress - The Washington Post

I'm not much for politics, but had it on.

The GOP rebuttal, by Washington Rep Cathy McMorris Rodgers ...I felt like I was watching the scene in Billy Madison when Miss Lippy reads "The Puppy Who Lost It's Way"

miked

01-29-2014 10:09 AM

I watched part of it while doing work. The only funny part was when he told everyone that instead of voting to repeal a law where most support the individual parts of it, maybe they should work to improve it. The part about 40 failed votes being enough that maybe they should do something different got a funny response.

panerd

01-29-2014 10:34 AM

I support 2008 Sen. Obama...

"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

Galaxy

01-29-2014 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2897955)

Government backed private retirement plan sounds interesting. Healthcare comment funny.

I don't why people would buy into this. The plans centers on government bonds, correct? Bonds that pay low interest rates that lag behind inflation rates? Isn't this why we have IRAs?

lungs

01-29-2014 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2898025)

Everybody hates congress. Nobody likes a hypocrite. Except when the hypocrite is being hypocritical about something everybody hates.

JPhillips

01-29-2014 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2898061)

I don't why people would buy into this. The plans centers on government bonds, correct? Bonds that pay low interest rates that lag behind inflation rates? Isn't this why we have IRAs?

If you already have an IRA or 401k it isn't for you. These accounts will roll over into a traditional IRA when they reach 15K as that's when companies can break even on accounts. I don't know how many people will take advantage of these, but the idea of getting lower income people to start saving isn't bad at all.

EagleFan

01-29-2014 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2898025)

I support 2008 Sen. Obama...

"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

I don't think that word means what he thinks it does...

RainMaker

01-29-2014 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2898061)

I don't why people would buy into this. The plans centers on government bonds, correct? Bonds that pay low interest rates that lag behind inflation rates? Isn't this why we have IRAs?

Yeah I'm not sure why we need this. It seems like it works just like a Roth IRA and you can buy government bonds inside a Roth IRA. The only thing I can think of is that it's for people who are scared of opening a retirement account through a bank/investment company. I just think it's a bad strategy to tell a young person to invest only in government bonds. Someone under 40 should be heavy in equities.

If he wants to tackle retirement, I'd love to go after the investment companies for the severe limitations on what funds you can buy in company 401k accounts. I'd also like more transparency when it comes to fees and expense ratios. That costs middle class families more than anything.

JPhillips

01-29-2014 09:50 PM

Here's a good summary of the goal and features of the MyRA. It may not reach very many people, but as a vehicle to get lower income employees to start saving it seems pretty unobjectionable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...to-know-2014-1

Edward64

01-31-2014 08:00 PM

Haven't read much about the peace process so this was an interesting article from Friedman. Pretty one sided insights into Netanyahu but nothing on Abbas & Hamas thinking.

Log In - The New York Times

Quote:

TEL AVIV — It is pretty clear now that Secretary of State John Kerry will either be Israel’s diplomatic salvation or the most dangerous diplomatic fanatic Israel has ever encountered. But there isn’t much room anymore for anything in between. This is one of those rare pay-per-view foreign policy moments. Pull up a chair. You don’t see this every day.

In essence what Kerry is daring to test is a question everyone has wanted to avoid: Is the situation between Israelis and Palestinians at five minutes to midnight or five minutes after midnight, or even 1 a.m. (beyond diplomacy)?
:
President Obama is letting Kerry test all this. Kerry has done so in a fanatically relentless — I’ve lost count of his visits here — but highly sophisticated way. After letting the two sides fruitlessly butt heads for six months, he’s now planning to present a U.S. framework that will lay out what Washington considers the core concessions Israelis and Palestinians need to make for a fair, lasting deal.

The “Kerry Plan,” likely to be unveiled soon, is expected to call for an end to the conflict and all claims, following a phased Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (based on the 1967 lines), with unprecedented security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley. The Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel will compensate the Palestinians for them with Israeli territory. It will call for the Palestinians to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian refugees into Israel proper.
:
This is where things will get interesting. U.S. and Israeli officials in close contact with Netanyahu describe him as torn, clearly understanding that some kind of two-state solution is necessary for Israel’s integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with the healthy ties to Europe and the West that are vital for Israel’s economy. But he remains deeply skeptical about Palestinian intentions — or as Netanyahu said here Tuesday: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us.” His political base, though, which he nurtured, does not want Netanyahu making a U-turn.

Which is why — although Netanyahu has started to prepare the ground here for the U.S. plan — if he proceeds on its basis, even with reservations, his coalition will likely collapse. He will lose a major part of his own Likud Party and all his other right-wing allies. In short, for Netanyahu to move forward, he will have to build a new political base around centrist parties. To do that, Netanyahu would have to become, to some degree, a new leader — overcoming his own innate ambivalence about any deal with the Palestinians to become Israel’s most vocal and enthusiastic salesman for a two-state deal, otherwise it would never pass.
:
If the Palestinians and Israelis find a way to proceed with the Kerry plan, everything is still possible. Success is hardly assured, but it will prove that it’s not midnight yet. But if either or both don’t agree, Kerry would have to take his mission to its logical, fanatical conclusion and declare the end of the negotiated two-state solution. (If not, he loses his credibility.)

If and when that happens, Israel, which controls the land, would have to either implement a unilateral withdrawal, live with the morally corrosive and globally isolating implications of a permanent West Bank occupation or design a new framework of one-state-for-two-people.

So that’s where we are: Israelis and Palestinians need to understand that Kerry’s mission is the last train to a negotiated two-state solution. The next train is the one coming at them.

flere-imsaho

02-03-2014 07:37 AM

Like so much Friedman writes, he gets the surface right, but misses the fundamental points. It's laid bare in his final sentence. What, exactly, is the "next train... coming at them"?

There's no realistic way for the U.S. to put enough pressure on Israel and the Palestinians at the same time to come to agreement, if they don't want to. Successive administrations have found this to their cost. What has changed now, Tom? Nothing that I can see.

The fact of the matter is that both sides still feel they have more to gain by hewing to their unilateral positions than actually negotiating. Netanyahu has created a coalition and state that retains an identity based on a siege mentality (i.e. "we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us"). The Palestinian leadership continues to be supported by other middle east states who want them to permanently be a thorn in Israel's side.

What Friedman gets right, potentially, is that if Kerry puts forward a clear "here's what you have to do to even get started" plan, and has it rejected, it shows that there's no real daylight for a deal right now. What he gets wrong, however, is that this won't presage some sort of "train... coming at them", it'll just result in the business as usual we've had for the past how many ever years.

The best result, to me, aside from the relatively small possibility of a negotiated settlement, would be the failure of the "Kerry plan" to be adopted resulting in the U.S. administration deciding not to spend any more resources there trying to broker a settlement, and thus focusing resources elsewhere. Given that almost every U.S. president in his second terms tends to spend inordinate resources trying to solve this particular problem, and usually to little effect, that would really be something.

Mizzou B-ball fan

02-03-2014 08:59 AM

I'm obviously not a fan of the president, but that interview between he and O'Reilly during the pre-game show yesterday was several minutes that I can never have back. No reason for all those political retread questions in an interview. That thing should have started with, "Mr. President, I know we have our differences, but we're here to talk football today!" and then gone on to some light-hearted banter from there. Both the president and O'Reilly had some really painful moments and it did no one any good.

ISiddiqui

02-03-2014 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2899694)

What, exactly, is the "next train... coming at them"?

Friedman actually mentions it in the paragraphs above that:

Quote:

But if either or both don’t agree, Kerry would have to take his mission to its logical, fanatical conclusion and declare the end of the negotiated two-state solution. (If not, he loses his credibility.)

I don't think it necessarily means anything right away, but Friedman is right that without a two-state solution, either Israel has to do it by abandoning the West Bank or it becomes a one state solution, eventually.

The end of the two-state solution would change the calculus decidedly - that's the train coming act them.

flere-imsaho

02-03-2014 11:09 AM

I guess I just don't see it as particularly realistic, to be honest. While it's certainly possible that Kerry might say "you both suck, and because of that the two-state solution is never going to happen" and focus on something else for the rest of Obama's administration (and I think that would be great), there's nothing to keep the Israelis and Palestinians from mooting the topic again in a few years and starting the charade all over.

Friedman is a fan of big pronouncements, but the world does not tend to move on account of big pronouncements, nor does it tend to switch from black to white and stay there. That's the problem I have with him.

Mizzou B-ball fan

02-05-2014 12:36 PM

Interesting read on the minimum wage debate.

Almost Everything You Have Been Told About The Minimum Wage Is False - Forbes

sterlingice

02-05-2014 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2900466)

Interesting read on the minimum wage debate.

Almost Everything You Have Been Told About The Minimum Wage Is False - Forbes

Well, it's /a/ read, anyways- not so "interesting", tho. His cited study that he builds a lot of the article on (the 63% figure that he uses to basically show that most minimum wage earners don't really need the income) was funded by the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative think tank. Never mind that the study was mostly garbage: it's simulations based loosely on only 4 years of data (they only use March data for some reason).

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

"Further, almost two-thirds of today’s minimum wage workers are in the service industry and nearly half work in food service. Because this is where the minimum wage workers are, that is what we will focus on for the rest of this column."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm
It's not that he's playing too little fast and loose with the numbers (it's 43%). But then he says "well, since it's almost half, we can say it's true for the whole". And then jumps to this conclusion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Having established that the number of minimum wage workers is small and shrinking, that most minimum wage workers are not poor, and that most of them are young and working their way up the ladder rather than supporting a family,

So, yeah, if 43% of a faulty 63% (based on only 4 sets of data, that I'm sure were not chosen with any partisan bias) are true, it must be true!

And never mind that the article keeps using liberal in the pejorative.

When did Forbes become so openly partisan?

SI

Marc Vaughan

02-05-2014 01:34 PM

Flick back and look through some of his previous articles - going by the titles I'm fairly certain he has a fixed viewpoint and is looking for evidence to substantiate it (as is often the case with both liberal and republican commentators):

Previous articles
Retail Wages Are Market Wages, Not a Welfare Program
Income Redistribution's Logical Conclusion Is Communism
White House Report Proves White House Is Wrong On Extended Unemployment Compensation

miked

02-05-2014 02:10 PM

Oh the irony...

Quote:

Originally Posted by silly article

While Republicans and small business owners are sure to resist this push, it is important that everyone on both sides debates the issue with the correct facts.

Edward64

02-08-2014 09:37 PM

Can't say I'm surprised and am still supportive of the law as a whole.

They quit their jobs, thanks to the health law - The Washington Post

Quote:

... an example of the latest controversy to spring up around the Affordable Care Act: its impact on the workforce.

The equivalent of about 2.5 million Americans will quit their jobs, cut their hours or stop looking for work during the next decade because of new benefits available under the health-care law, according to recent Congressional Budget Office estimates that have renewed debate over the program’s effect on the economy.

In its report, the nonpartisan CBO says that workers, taking into consideration the new financial assistance available from the federal government to make insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income people, will scale back their productivity.

It contends that the effect on the labor force will be most pronounced among those who qualify for the subsidies — certain low-income people who make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $45,000 annually for an individual. The more money people make, the lower their subsidies.

The report cited evidence that government health-insurance programs for the poor discourage work. A study in Tennessee found that the employment rate ticked upward after the state in 2005 kicked 170,000 adults off Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor.

larrymcg421

02-08-2014 09:45 PM

Wouldn't this open up 2.5 million jobs that now will have lower demand and thus increase wages? Sounds good to me.

JPhillips

02-08-2014 09:53 PM

Yep. People no longer feeling tied to their current job is a benefit of the ACA as far as I'm concerned.

miked

02-09-2014 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2901318)

Yep. People no longer feeling tied to their current job is a benefit of the ACA as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure it reads like that. It's not that they feel tied to their current job, it's that if they work more (or make more) they lose their subsidies. So they'd rather not work and get free healthcare than work and risk having to pay more. Isn't that what the article says?

JPhillips

02-09-2014 08:43 AM

What I've read is that the decrease in hours worked comes from a number of sources.

Edward64

02-09-2014 09:34 AM

I don't think this issue will hurt the GOP as much as the Immigration reform stance. I do feel it needs to end sometime.

Log In - The New York Times

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate failed to move forward on a three-month extension of assistance for the long-term unemployed on Thursday, leaving it unlikely that Congress would approve the measure soon while undercutting a key aspect of President Obama’s economic recovery plan.

Fifty-nine senators, including four Republicans, voted to advance the legislation, falling one vote short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster effort.

Republicans and Democrats, many from the nation’s most economically depressed states, had been trying to reach a solution that would allow people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance to continue receiving benefits as long as the government offset the $6 billion cost.

Ultimately, how to pay for the program proved too big a hurdle for senators to overcome.

“We’ve given them everything they wanted. Paid for,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, flashing his irritation at Republicans who blocked the bill.

He said Democrats would keep pushing to extend the benefits, which expired at the end of last year, cutting off more than 1.3 million Americans. That number has since grown to more than 1.7 million.

Edward64

02-09-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2901366)

I think the subsidies is a contributing factor but not the whole story. People work for more than just healthcare. Nevertheless, ACA does make it easier for people to leave jobs ... suspect more so for older workers not yet eligible for SS/Medicare eligibility.

Too soon to tell (but in 10-15 years time?), interesting to read the analysis of how ACA shaped the workforce re: older workers, under skilled workers, corporation benefits packages, Insurance companies, cost of drugs etc.

Galaxy

02-09-2014 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2901373)

I don't think this issue will hurt the GOP as much as the Immigration reform stance. I do feel it needs to end sometime.

Log In - The New York Times

I wish the article would have noted how it was going to be paid for.

"“We’ve given them everything they wanted. Paid for,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, flashing his irritation at Republicans who blocked the bill."

Galaxy

02-09-2014 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2901316)

Can't say I'm surprised and am still supportive of the law as a whole.

They quit their jobs, thanks to the health law - The Washington Post

Interesting piece on this topic:

Yes, Obamacare will probably downsize the workforce. Economists explain why.

Another article on the Middle Class and affordability:

For 3 million, 'affordable' health care might not be

Edward64

02-09-2014 10:15 AM

Pension smoothing.

Senate fails to extend unemployment benefits for the third time - CBS News

Quote:

Reid tried a new tactic Thursday, putting a three-month extension of EUC up for a vote that not only pays for the $6.4 billion price tag but also reduces the deficit by $1.2 billion. This is achieved through a method called “pension smoothing” that allows companies to use historic interest rate averages to calculate pension contributions, and by ending unemployment insurance payments to any person whose adjusted gross income in the preceding year was $1 million or more.

Before the vote, Democrats noted that 24 Republicans voted to use pension smoothing as a way to pay for an extension of student loan rates the same year. The millionaire provision models 2011 legislation from Sen. Tom Cole, R-Okla., that received unanimous support.

Reid said earlier this week that he was “cautiously optimistic” that this plan would draw Republican support.

But he still isn’t allowing Republicans to offer amendments, setting Democrats up for a potential failure just like the last time they tried to extend the benefits three weeks ago. The GOP is still fuming about a rules change Reid pushed last year that diminishes their filibuster power, and even the other sweeteners like deficit reduction that Democrats offered were not enough to get Republicans to vote yes.

PilotMan

02-09-2014 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2901385)

First article...
Why use Tennessee instead of Massachusetts? What do the numbers say there?

The article makes no mention of the size of the workforce. Boomers are retiring ever single day and they were going to retire eventually. You don't find an increase in labor until you get to the Millennial generation. So a decrease in overall labor isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's more of a transition for the next few years until Millennials really take over the base of the labor force. Until then there will be articles touting lost jobs all over the place with no mention of the demographics of the labor force. It's a very valid data point for analysis.

Second article...

A really shitty article written with the only from the perspective of insurance today. No mention of what the self insurance costs would have been prior to the law. The focus on the affordable part is absurd.

The guy they use in the article had no insurance before so sure having to pay for it sucks, but welcome to responsible life. So where are the articles talking about the stemming of the costs of healthcare for the rest of us who have been watching is skyrocket for the last 10 years? Where were these articles 10 years ago?

They didn't exist. Money was being made by too many people in the right places. On the backs of the rest of us who carried insurance.

My last job I was making 22k a year (before I was bumped to 50K a few months later) for a family of 5. I had company insurance that was costing me $400 a month with no help from the government. I made it work because I had a responsibility to my family to protect them and to protect our families finances. You tell me. How am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who didn't have insurance who now has to have it?

Per the article:
That could take a substantial bite from their budgets — potentially as much as $600 a month for a family of three earning $58,590 to $78,120.

It's more than fair and affordable for this income range, 3 people and cost.

I've been supporting 5 people for 11 years never making more than 50k per year and always had insurance. Not having it would have been a gigantic failure of my responsibilities to my family. Oh I priced other plans. And the the ones that the insurers were offering were horrid, weak, expensive for what my family needed. But I don't recall seeing any articles about those plans anywhere.

It's BS.

flere-imsaho

02-10-2014 07:52 AM

Re: Obamacare & Jobs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Yglesias

All things considered, I still think this is a happy story. Obamacare will kill jobs in the same way that Social Security kills jobs. By making it easier for people in certain circumstances to get by without a job. But your mileage may vary on this. The point, however, is that we're talking about people quitting not about people getting fired.

Obamacare as job-killer: How the CBO thinks it'll work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Cohn

But CBO didn't actually say Obamacare would lead to 2 million fewer jobs. It said that Obamacare would lead to the "equivalent" of 2 million fewer jobs. In reality, CBO expects a much larger group of people to reduce their hours by a much smaller amount. Only a relative few will stop working altogether.

CBO Updates Analysis of Obamacare Effect on Jobs | New Republic

flere-imsaho

02-10-2014 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2901373)

I do feel it needs to end sometime.

Why?

For some perspective, if the government were to end, or even suspend, America's largest corporate welfare project - the F-35 boondoggle - you could pay for assistance to the long-term unemployed for decades.

It's all about priorities. A plane that can't fly near Thunderstorms? Or food for those unable to work or find work?

Edward64

02-10-2014 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2901573)

I'm sure they'll be able to fix that issue sometime but your point is taken, there are other examples out there for sure.

See below exhibit C

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412...unemployed.pdf

Food for those unable to work - 6.5%. I think there was a study that said more people are on disability now due to the easier eligibility. Granted there is a percentage that is legitimate and they should be cared for.

Unable to find work. Is it unable to find work or unable to accept their cheese has moved and they need to do something different, accept lower pay etc. If this group cannot find a new job in 73 to 99 weeks, do you believe this group can find a new job with another 3 months extension? How long is long enough? (I don't know myself).

Edward64

02-10-2014 08:13 PM

It was on npr.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

JPhillips

02-10-2014 09:10 PM

The long term unemployed have it especially tough. The unemployment rate for this group is far higher than the national average. I'm fine with asking firms to stop discriminating and with creating retraining, but the only way that group sees significant improvement is if we get much closer to full employment. As long as companies can hire without reaching into the pool of long term unemployed, they won't.

Until unemployment is below at least 6% we need a lot more stimulus, not less.

Dutch

02-10-2014 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2901573)

The difference of course, is that eventually we realize that the F-35 program (to take your example) was way to expensive to sustain and we cut it and move on.

flere-imsaho

02-10-2014 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D (Post 2901772)

The difference of course, is that eventually we realize that the F-35 program (to take your example) was way to expensive to sustain and we cut it and move on.

Yeah, call me when that happens.

miked

02-10-2014 09:36 PM

Only an estimated 1.45 trillion and counting...

Dutch

02-10-2014 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2901786)

Only an estimated 1.45 trillion and counting...

I realize this was my doing, but I refuse to debate with you.

Galaxy

02-11-2014 01:19 AM