Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Medicaid enrollee numbers significantly off?

Fewer than 2 million Americans signed up for Medicaid last year because of the health-care law, according to a new report suggesting that many of the people who have joined the program since open enrollment started in October would have done so regardless of the law.

From Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, between 1.1 million and 1.8 million people signed up for Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act, according to a report Wednesday from Avalere Health, a consulting firm. Twenty-five states and the District expanded the state-federal program for the poor under the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e78-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html?hpid=z1

Medicaid applications from HealthCare.gov called flawed; Mo. enrollment dips

Rather, the number of Missourians on Medicaid has actually decreased by about 14,000 since the marketplace launched on Oct. 1.

The state says application data forwarded by the online exchange is fraught with errors and duplication. “We’re in the process of sorting it out,” said Brian Kinkade, acting director of the social services department.

As for declining Medicaid enrollment, Kinkade and other experts chalk that up to the improving economy, though some say startup problems with the state’s transition to online applications also may be a factor.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/specia...cle_a4c715f2-02ad-5a1b-9204-634d7e0531ee.html

The obvious retort is that the study only includes data between October 1st and December 31st. Still, it seems pretty damn off.

 

[thepotatoman]

Wow GOP folding like cheap lawn furniture. They have no idea what they want with debt ceiling.

They simply just want to survive politically. They just don't know how to do even that. I don't even know how they'll do that.

 

[Black Mamba]

Medicaid enrollee numbers significantly off?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e78-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html?hpid=z1


http://www.stltoday.com/news/specia...cle_a4c715f2-02ad-5a1b-9204-634d7e0531ee.html

The obvious retort is that the study only includes data between October 1st and December 31st. Still, it seems pretty damn off.

There's some flaws there. For one, it ignores woodwork effect. For another, it compares it only with July-Sept data which no one knows if it is accurate. For more, it ignores that people they count as renewing might have not be able to renew (ie no longer pregnant) without expansion.

The 6 million figure obviously includes legit renewals and people who would have been on medicaid without expansion, but the notion that 4 million + of them would have signed up for medicaid in 3 months without expansion doesn't pass the smell test for me. That implies (using their method) around 16 million people each year, without expansion. Yeah, nope.

 

[speculawyer]

What's gross is that companies like AT&T and Comcast contribute thousands of dollars to the Senate Conservatives Fund. And I can't boycott them without also boycotting access to the internet. This is why corporations should be barred from all political participation.

Well completely barring all corporations from political participation. How about starting smaller . . . such as any business that gets more than 25% of its revenue from government contracts is barred from politics (too much chance of corruption).

 

[kehs]

I know it doesn't make them legal. But it keeps them here.


Politico is crap:

Yup that's all that matters, not facts but how 'it looks in attack ads' even when its factually inaccurate

Keeping them here doesn't do anything though, it's basically a class of people who you can't try any more cause of double jeopardy, and they have no access to the system as well. It would be a mistake if obama if he pardoned illegal immigrants. As other mentioned, the system is messed up, and that needs to be targeted first before pardoning people.

If obama needs to pardon anyone is all the people locked up for low level marijuana offenses, cause fuck that.

To the point that someone made about Obama deporting greater number than Bush. The Obama admin has focused their efforts on deporting criminal people in the immigration system. If I'm remembering correctly it's mostly people with felonies and federal things.

Just about to post it:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ider-linking-military-benefits-to-debt-limit/

This would be a bit dicey for Obama. On the one hand, he shouldn't negotiate over anything. On the other, not raising the debt ceiling over military benefits could be bad and a lot of Dems may be forced to sign on anyway.

Good chance the caucus can't bring it up anyway, which would be best. This stuff should be done separately.

Gettin republicans to talk about spending omney is HUGE.

Obama sets the precedent that only stimulus raises the debt ceiling. Win win!

Yup, cause this turns the conversation from "spending vs saving" to "spending on X vs Spending on Y"

 

[Jackson50]

Meanwhile, in the "impending GOP meltdown" column...



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/u...atives-lead-way-in-gop-fund-raising.html?_r=0

The establishment is only the establishment because it has money. If it loses its fundraising advantage over the grassroots, then there's no core party any more. That means Santorum. All over everything.

I don't think we're witnessing the dissolution of the party, but rather we are witnessing the transformation of the Republican establishment. It might not be a wholesale transformation as of yet, and the party might remain split for the next few cycles. But as the more radical elements continue to attract support, their influence over the direction of the party strengthens. If the more radical conservatives are galvanizing the party faithful, and it's evident the preferences of the party's donors and activists have shifted, the party will reflect that.

Definitely fair points, thanks. Must be difficult to stake out an appropriate level of support rendered, given the proclivity of extremist groups of confiscating it for themselves.

Indeed. Terribly difficult. Granted, the goal of aiding the insurgents liberate Syria might be just, but the process of providing military aid is fraught with peril. Aside from the logistical difficulties in monitoring the supply of weapons, the consequences of a free flow of arms can be devastating, I prefer a more conservative approach when the uncertainty is great and the consequences potentially considerable.

 

[rocketknight]

Obama sets the precedent that only stimulus raises the debt ceiling. Win win!

lol. GOP: "Increase spending or we won't increase the debt limit, because we're super concerned about our deficit and shouldn't be borrowing from China!"

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think we're witnessing the dissolution of the party, but rather we are witnessing the transformation of the Republican establishment. It might not be a wholesale transformation as of yet, and the party might remain split for the next few cycles. But as the more radical elements continue to attract support, their influence over the direction of the party strengthens. If the more radical conservatives are galvanizing the party faithful, and it's evident the preferences of the party's donors and activists have shifted, the party will reflect that.Indeed. Terribly difficult. Granted, the goal of aiding the insurgents liberate Syria might be just, but the process of providing military aid is fraught with peril. Aside from the logistical difficulties in monitoring the supply of weapons, the consequences of a free flow of arms can be devastating, I prefer a more conservative approach when the uncertainty is great and the consequences potentially considerable.

This is the culmination of a 50-year-long process. The political resurgence of the South at the national level.

 

[Oblivion]

Meanwhile, in the "impending GOP meltdown" column...



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/u...atives-lead-way-in-gop-fund-raising.html?_r=0

The establishment is only the establishment because it has money. If it loses its fundraising advantage over the grassroots, then there's no core party any more. That means Santorum. All over everything.

I have to say. This "war" between the tea baggers and the establishment is one of the strangest things in politics. Usually when you have a civil war, it tends to be about policy (like the progressives vs. the third way types in the Democratic party), but with the Republicans, there's no policy dispute. Or if there is, it's very, very tiny. Both sides believe in completely obliterating Obamacare. Both sides would rather die than to raise a single cent in taxes on the rich. Both sides seek to do whatever they can to make the rich richer. It's like two whores* fighting over the same John, both want to suck his dick, but one seems to be a little too into it and keeps using their teeth.

*Of course, the whore analogy doesn't exactly work because whores generally receive money for their services. In this case, the whores themselves are offering money for the privilege of sucking dick.

 

[thezerofire]

I have to say. This "war" between the tea baggers and the establishment is one of the strangest things in politics. Usually when you have a civil war, it tends to be about policy (like the progressives vs. the third way types in the Democratic party), but with the Republicans, there's no policy dispute. Or if there is, it's very, very tiny. Both sides believe in completely obliterating Obamacare. Both sides would rather die than to raise a single cent in taxes on the rich. Both sides seek to do whatever they can to make the rich richer. It's like two whores* fighting over the same John, both want to suck his dick, but one seems to be a little too into it and keeps using their teeth.

*Of course, the whore analogy doesn't exactly work because whores generally receive money for their services. In this case, the whores themselves are offering money for the privilege of sucking dick.

groupies then, maybe?

 

[pigeon]

I don't think we're witnessing the dissolution of the party, but rather we are witnessing the transformation of the Republican establishment. It might not be a wholesale transformation as of yet, and the party might remain split for the next few cycles. But as the more radical elements continue to attract support, their influence over the direction of the party strengthens. If the more radical conservatives are galvanizing the party faithful, and it's evident the preferences of the party's donors and activists have shifted, the party will reflect that.

Well, maybe I overstated the case. There are two requirements for a party establishment -- it has to be able to produce the money, and it has to be able to produce the votes. If the dominating forces in Republican party fundraising favor policies that can't be politically successful in America, then in practice there's no establishment.

 

[zero shift]

This is the culmination of a 50-year-long process. The political resurgence of the South at the national level.

While the South has much to do with it, I feel that it is the white majority clawing the floor to grasp their last few moments of a White America. A big reason the South has always been so hostile is because they were afraid of losing their "southern way of life" from blacks and the northern elite. Now it seems that much of White America has adopted that as a whole but instead focusing on not just blacks but latinos, muslims, and the general youth as well. Much of America yearns for the days of the 1950s as portrayed on sitcoms of that era.

Fortunately this is a war they are going to lose. Demographics guarantee it.

I have to say. This "war" between the tea baggers and the establishment is one of the strangest things in politics. Usually when you have a civil war, it tends to be about policy (like the progressives vs. the third way types in the Democratic party), but with the Republicans, there's no policy dispute. Or if there is, it's very, very tiny. Both sides believe in completely obliterating Obamacare. Both sides would rather die than to raise a single cent in taxes on the rich. Both sides seek to do whatever they can to make the rich richer. It's like two whores* fighting over the same John, but one seems to be a little too into it and keeps using their teeth.

Its what is typical with politics. The more radical extreme wing of the party swallows the other. Look at many far left or far right movements and you will see the same. Very rarely do you have a middle ground between a Communist/Socialist party or a Nationalist party. This is why it is rare to find countries like 1970s France or modern Hungary. You either go to the extreme or you don't go at all. Rarely will both sides meet in the middle.

 

[Oblivion]

groupies then, maybe?

I'd like to find something a bit more insulting sounding.

 

[KingK]

I'm glad to see Jackson50 is back. I always enjoy reading his posts (in Azula's voice), especially whenever he talks foreign policy.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think we're witnessing the dissolution of the party, but rather we are witnessing the transformation of the Republican establishment. It might not be a wholesale transformation as of yet, and the party might remain split for the next few cycles. But as the more radical elements continue to attract support, their influence over the direction of the party strengthens. If the more radical conservatives are galvanizing the party faithful, and it's evident the preferences of the party's donors and activists have shifted, the party will reflect that.

The GOP is definitely in a rough patch.

With the hardcore conservatives: The gays & god stuff doesn't really work any more outside of the base. Abortion still works but it doesn't get them enough votes to win elections. The guns stuff works but only on a small hardcore following.

With the establishment: The 'small government' line works but it is fraying. The voodoo economics is kinda falling apart . . . if giving rich people all the money created huge amounts of jobs then we should be drowning in jobs right now. The rich has never been so rich . . . where are the jobs?

The coalition is just really weak. None of them have anything useful to offer other than the same old, same old which only works on the current true believers. Their biggest pitch seems to be "We are not Obama" . . . which is pretty weaksauce.

Where do they go from here? I have no idea. I guess there is the Rand Paul route. But it mostly looks like they are just gonna keep doing the same damn thing as always. And it will probably work well enough for the mid-term. They are gonna get slaughtered again in 2016 though.

 

[zero shift]

Where do they go from here? I have no idea. I guess there is the Rand Paul route.

Call me a sadist but I've always wondered what such a route would be like. How crazy is the GOP willing to get? How damaging could Paulism be for the nation? Global economic meltdown? Poverty at record high levels?

 

[theprodigy]

Call me a sadist but I've always wondered what such a route would be like. How crazy is the GOP willing to get? How damaging could Paulism be for the nation? Global economic meltdown? Poverty at record high levels?

zero poverty because Rand would abolish the systems responsible for tracking that

checkmate, liberals /s

also lol when did you get that tag

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Saw this graphic.

Leave it to conservatives to get upset about this one. Less people on gubamint insurance (Medicaid) and more people using private insurance.

Yet many Republican minded folk seem to think if you sign up for an insurance plan on the exchange, you are demonstrating reliance on the government. Yawn.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

‏@ByronYork
So: Given problems in labor force--departing boomers, long term unemployed--why add new drag with giant health care scheme?

Say a lot doesn't it. Tightening up the labor market, by reducing supply is a drag on who? Not businesses because they're not hiring (enough with the concern trolling about long term unemployed if your going to propose nothing to help them). Not workers because if they're leaving the labor force I'd assume they have support networks or are old enough to collect social security.

It only hurts business bargaining power over labor which is what the GOP seems to stand for today more than anything. We're not at full employment.

Or am I wrong on this?

 

[empty vessel]

Say a lot doesn't it. Tightening up the labor market, by reducing supply is a drag on who? Not businesses because they're not hiring (enough with the concern trolling about long term unemployed if your going to propose nothing to help them). Not workers because if they're leaving the labor force I'd assume they have support networks or are old enough to collect social security.

It only hurts business bargaining power over labor which is what the GOP seems to stand for today more than anything. We're not at full employment. Just different people from the ones cutting back their hours because they don't need them.

Or am I wrong on this?

Sounds right to me. If businesses need the work done, they will hire people to do it. Just different people from the ones cutting back their hours because they don't need them. There are plenty of people looking for work to pick up that slack.

 

[Diablos]

I don't think we're witnessing the dissolution of the party, but rather we are witnessing the transformation of the Republican establishment. It might not be a wholesale transformation as of yet, and the party might remain split for the next few cycles.

And then what? We'll end up being stuck with a new Speaker of the House who will always opt for default and not just talk the talk when has has to? The Tea Party caucus of ~50 turns into over 100? Etc. Things are beyond troubling enough as is, I hope the infighting results in the party splitting off or at the very least not moving any more to the right than they already are presently.

I'd say moving more to the right will cost them the House at some point, but I sincerely doubt it because this is America and ignorance is bliss. Either way when you know the alternative is growing more radical by the year and we only have a two party system it is effectively going to be something that will always be poisoning the well and how/what laws are passed, with a Dem majority in the House even.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sounds right to me. If businesses need the work done, they will hire people to do it. Just different people from the ones cutting back their hours because they don't need them. There are plenty of people looking for work to pick up that slack.

I think work requirements are a roundabout way for conservatives to coerce people that don't want to be in the labor market to enter it their by reducing labors power.

So its a double attack on workers and people who don't have capital and can for all practical intents and purposes not work by virtue of their birth. Benefits get cut and workers bargaining power is reduced. Forcing people to work hurts workers already in the labor force.

 

[Incognito]

the curse of the SOTU response strikes again...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-ethics-inquiry-103205.html

GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) faces a possible House Ethics Committee investigation over allegations by a former staffer that she improperly mixed campaign and official funds to help win a 2012 House leadership race.

The Office of Congressional Ethics has recommended that the Ethics Committee conduct a full probe into the case. The Ethics Committee is expected to announce as early as today that it will take another 45 days to review the OCE recommendation. OCE originally forwarded its recommendation to the Ethics Committee shortly before the Christmas holiday.

 

[FLEABttn]

Or am I wrong on this?

No because...

I think work requirements are a roundabout way for conservatives to coerce people that don't want to be in the labor market to enter it their by reducing labors power.

Exactly this. The GOP presenting reduced economic coercion to "encourage" people to work more than they want or realistically have to as an economic drag is entirely unsurprising.

 

[AndyD]

Sounds right to me. If businesses need the work done, they will hire people to do it. Just different people from the ones cutting back their hours because they don't need them. There are plenty of people looking for work to pick up that slack.

That was my read of the CBO as well. The same amount of work will need to be done (no cuts on the demand side), but some people will work less hours by choice, freeing up hours for others to pick up. So it could actually boost employment rate as a whole (more people working) without boosting the total work hours. I don't really see a huge problem with it.

Does the ACA specify a mechanism for reduction in the subsidies over time?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That was my read of the CBO as well. The same amount of work will need to be done (no cuts on the demand side), but some people will work less hours by choice, freeing up hours for others to pick up. So it could actually boost employment rate as a whole (more people working) without boosting the total work hours. I don't really see a huge problem with it.

Does the ACA specify a mechanism for reduction in the subsidies over time?

I don't think so. The subsidies reduce work incentives because 1) they make plans cheaper, so you have to work less hours to afford them and 2) they reduce as your income increases, causing a worker to have to pay more if they work more.

But that's the CBOs conclusion, It will help unemployment.

 

[AndyD]

I don't think so. The subsidies reduce work incentives because 1) they make plans cheaper, so you have to work less hours to afford them and 2) they reduce as your income increases, causing a worker to have to pay more if they work more.

But that's the CBOs conclusion, It will help unemployment.

I don't see why over time the subsidies could not be tweaked/reduced once we see how they affect work patterns and the workforce. I understand some people will end up working a certain pattern to avoid a decrease in subsidies, but that can be said about other things like avoiding taxes, so it may not be as bad as it appears at first glance.

 

[empty vessel]

"Reducing work incentives" = people being less desperate for work.

People being less desperate for work = higher bargaining power vis-a-vis employers.

Higher bargaining power vis-a-vis employers = higher wages for all workers relative to business revenue.

Basically, people who get paychecks get more at the expense of people who own stocks or sit in boardrooms. And all because work incentives were reduced. And, in this case, the "incentive" that employers were using to gain a bargaining advantage was basic human health care. That unfair advantage has been reduced at least a decent bit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't see why over time the subsidies could not be tweaked/reduced once we see how they affect work patterns and the workforce. I understand some people will end up working a certain pattern to avoid a decrease in subsidies, but that can be said about other things like avoiding taxes, so it may not be as bad as it appears at first glance.

Here's a bit of an over view of how they are changing incentives

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-discouraging-work-2014-2

Obamacare will discourage people from working in two main ways: through "income effects" and "substitution effects." Broadly, fiscal policies have two kinds of effects on behavior. There are income effects: When you give a person a subsidized health plan, you raise that person's real income, making it easier for him to quit his job, work fewer hours, or take a job that doesn't offer insurance. And there are substitution effects: If you phase out that person's health insurance subsidy with rising income, you encourage him to work less, and instead substitute non-taxed activities, such as leisure or child-rearing. Importantly, this substitution is a distortion: In absence of the tax, the worker would have preferred to work and earn his pre-tax wage, rather than spend time on something else.

The work-discouraging substitution effect from Obamacare is clearly bad. For workers who rely on health insurance subsidies created by the law, Obamacare will reduce the marginal return to labor: That is, they'll get less after-tax income for working one more hour. This is because a higher income will mean a smaller health plan subsidy.

Any alternative policy to significantly expand health coverage will also have income and substitution effects that reduce labor supply. If you give out subsidies for health insurance that aren't tied to employment, you'll create an income effect that makes it easier for people to work less. If you phase out those subsidies, you'll create a substitution effect that encourages people to work fewer hours. (For example, the Republican Coburn-Burr-Hatch Obamacare alternative has both of these features, and so would also reduce employment relative to the pre-Obamacare status quo.) If you don't phase out the subsidies, they'll be really expensive, and you'll have to raise some tax to pay for them; that tax will also create a substitution effect that discourages work. There is a trade-off here, as with any government program that costs money: Taxes discourage work and reduce economic output, but they pay for things we value, like a near-universal health insurance entitlement.

These fixes should be focused on alleviating the substitution effects, not the desirable income effects. The most obvious way to do this is by repealing the penalty on employers who don't provide health coverage, which has already been delayed to 2015. (While people mostly talk about the penalty as a policy that might reduce labor demand, CBO expects most of the penalty to be passed through to workers in the form of lower wages, which will reduce labor supply.) The phaseout range for subsidies could be extended, so workers lose less subsidy value for every extra dollar they earn. Most importantly, more effective policies to contain health care costs would reduce the size of the subsidies necessary to get people covered, which would then reduce the severity of the phaseouts.

The phase out was to reduce costs so the law was more neutral deficit wise. That's where the problem is anything that helps 'increases the deficit' which is why it won't happen. I do agree it's not as bad as it appears but its not good that there are penalties for choosing to work more.

 

[zero shift]

Think of it this way. The less people there are working more than one job the more openings there are for the unemployed seeking employment.

also lol when did you get that tag

I troll time to time so I deserving got it. Not really complaining since I had it coming. I wondered if I could eventually get rid of it due to good behavior but seeing speculawyer's tag is from more than seven years ago I am not holding my breath.

 

[Jackson50]

And then what? We'll end up being stuck with a new Speaker of the House who will always opt for default and not just talk the talk when has has to? The Tea Party caucus of ~50 turns into over 100? Etc. Things are beyond troubling enough as is, I hope the infighting results in the party splitting off or at the very least not moving any more to the right than they already are presently.

I'd say moving more to the right will cost them the House at some point, but I sincerely doubt it because this is America and ignorance is bliss. Either way when you know the alternative is growing more radical by the year and we only have a two party system it is effectively going to be something that will always be poisoning the well and how/what laws are passed, with a Dem majority in the House even.

Perhaps. I think the fervor will eventually diminish and they restore a bit of sanity. The 2016 election should portend how long the insanity persists. If they nominate a sensible candidate, as sensible as any current Republican can be, the party might recover. But if they nominate a true believer, as they were itching to in 2012, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Then, they would maintain their current trajectory and become a diminished second party until the fever has run its course. The stridency of the new breed has already harmed them nationally. But I don't envision a party split. Remember, this party system has prevailed for over 150 years. And both parties have survived more acrimonious disputes than this. The GOP will survive. But its national competitiveness will depend on it eschewing its more radical proclivities.

The GOP is definitely in a rough patch.

With the hardcore conservatives: The gays & god stuff doesn't really work any more outside of the base. Abortion still works but it doesn't get them enough votes to win elections. The guns stuff works but only on a small hardcore following.

With the establishment: The 'small government' line works but it is fraying. The voodoo economics is kinda falling apart . . . if giving rich people all the money created huge amounts of jobs then we should be drowning in jobs right now. The rich has never been so rich . . . where are the jobs?

The coalition is just really weak. None of them have anything useful to offer other than the same old, same old which only works on the current true believers. Their biggest pitch seems to be "We are not Obama" . . . which is pretty weaksauce.

Where do they go from here? I have no idea. I guess there is the Rand Paul route. But it mostly looks like they are just gonna keep doing the same damn thing as always. And it will probably work well enough for the mid-term. They are gonna get slaughtered again in 2016 though.

In all honesty, I struggle to analyze the GOP. This civil war bemuses me. I don't perceive a great deal of separation between the various factions on policy. It's certainly not analogous to the progressive/conservative Republican split of the early 20th Century or Southern/Northern Democratic split. They largely agree on policy, although the new breed is more strident. A recurring complaint from them laments compromise, but that seems like such a weird issue to cannibalize your own party over. Perhaps it's a weird variant of right-wing populism. Regardless, it's a joy to witness.

I'm glad to see Jackson50 is back. I always enjoy reading his posts (in Azula's voice), especially whenever he talks foreign policy.

Thanks. The past year has been hectic. But now with a bit of breathing room, I can enjoy the simple pleasures again.

 

[speculawyer]

I troll time to time so I deserving got it. Not really complaining since I had it coming. I wondered if I could eventually get rid of it due to good behavior but seeing speculawyer's tag is from more than seven years ago I am not holding my breath.

You don't say.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Senate Republicans block Democrats' new bit to restore unemployment benefits for 1.7 million Americans #breaking

SHOCKING NEWS

 

[zero shift]

You don't say.

I always have horrible government officials as avatars. Just like my previous Kim Jong Un one.

Anyway I am sorry if I annoyed anyone.

 

[Oblivion]

Here's a question that I haven't seen anyone ask: if ~3 million people do wind up pulling out of the labor market, and businesses feel that they NEED those 3 million people, wouldn't those job openings be filled by other people?

 

[empty vessel]

In all honesty, I struggle to analyze the GOP. This civil war bemuses me. I don't perceive a great deal of separation between the various factions on policy. It's certainly not analogous to the progressive/conservative Republican split of the early 20th Century or Southern/Northern Democratic split. They largely agree on policy, although the new breed is more strident. A recurring complaint from them laments compromise, but that seems like such a weird issue to cannibalize your own party over. Perhaps it's a weird variant of right-wing populism. Regardless, it's a joy to witness.

A faction is radicalized. That means they want a fundamental transformation of society and government. They effectively want to undo the changes made to the federal structure of our governing institutions after the civil war. The "moderates" (or establishment) "just" want to undo most of the New Deal. Amazingly, some of the former even managed to gain seats on the Supreme Court in the 1980s.

I should add to this. More viscerally, the dispute is, I think, about process. Radicals are radical precisely because they want to take an axe to the current system. Tea partiers would, if they could, shrink the federal government down to nothing overnight (with disastrous consequences of course). Disputes over the pace of reform (or, in this case, regression and institutional destruction) are not insignificant points of departure, even when ideal results might be more or less agreed upon.

 

[sc0la]

I troll time to time so I deserving got it.

I don't always troll. But when I do even PD takes notice it is astrolad tier.

 

[AndyD]

Yes, and they might even have to--gasp!--pay them more in order to recruit them.

That's why this is a good thing.

edit: There could be times where there truly would be a shortage of labor in the labor market, and that would be bad, but that's clearly not the case right now.

And for those times you can look towards immigration as a savior. Gasp!

 

[empty vessel]

Didn't see it here, yet; Senate Republicans filibustered extending unemployment benefits today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/us/politics/senate-fails-to-advance-unemployment-extension.html

 

[Incognito]

I troll time to time so I deserving got it. Not really complaining since I had it coming. I wondered if I could eventually get rid of it due to good behavior but seeing speculawyer's tag is from more than seven years ago I am not holding my breath.

trust me, we are doomed to irrelevancy with our tags. mine as well play the part while being careful to avoid obvious pitfalls (for me, the gaming side)

 

[Incognito]

afl-cio throws support behind keystone XL

http://inthesetimes.com/article/162...ntalists_afl_cio_pushes_fossil_fuel_investme/

The nation’s leading environmental groups are digging their heels in the sand by rejecting President Obama’s “all-of-the above” domestic energy strategy—which calls for pursuing renewable energy sources like wind and solar, but simultaneously expanding oil and gas production.

But it appears the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, won’t be taking environmentalists’ side in this fight, despite moves toward labor-environmentalist cooperation in recent years. On a recent conference call with reporters, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka endorsed two initiatives reviled by green groups: the Keystone XL pipeline and new natural gas export terminals.

“There’s no environmental reason that [the pipeline] can’t be done safely while at the same time creating jobs,” said Trumka.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Didn't see it here, yet; Senate Republicans filibustered extending unemployment benefits today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/us/politics/senate-fails-to-advance-unemployment-extension.html

The times screwed up that article

It was 58-40 (paid for) then there was another vote 55-42 (not paid for)

But anyways Democracy! 55 votes loses!

 

[Black Mamba]

Here's a question that I haven't seen anyone ask: if ~3 million people do wind up pulling out of the labor market, and businesses feel that they NEED those 3 million people, wouldn't those job openings be filled by other people?

Yes, but the CBO isn't stating anything other than HOURS WORKS declining.

People will drop out and be replaced 100% which will have a positive effect on the UE rate in two ways: people leaving workforce, people finding a job. But those those actually affect the CBO's numbers on hours.

What will happen is people will stop working OT or will work 38 hours instead of 40 or possibly take more sick/vacation days if possible and THIS won't be recovered (at least no without higher wages offered).

People actually quitting will be replaced and will have a net zero effect on labor hours. It's the small business owner who will work less hours or the worker who can take an extra unpaid sick day or two that the CBO is arguing for a reduction in hours.

 

[empty vessel]

It's the small business owner who will work less hours or the worker who can take an extra unpaid sick day or two that the CBO is arguing for a reduction in hours.

I.E., LEACHES.

It will be fascinating to see how many people Republicans successfully persuade that this is a bad thing.

 

[thepotatoman]

Didn't see it here, yet; Senate Republicans filibustered extending unemployment benefits today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/us/politics/senate-fails-to-advance-unemployment-extension.html

“We know it’s a political game,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah. “We know they’d like to bring it up every three months and bash Republicans with it.”

I love that defense. "Democrats are only doing it because it makes us look bad". I know political games do happen (see senator Obama on the debt ceiling), but it becomes ridiculous when every popular position Democrats ever take gets excused as "they're only doing it for popularity sake" by the Republicans.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Its real lol.

(I know there is auto-following)

 

[AndyD]

Yes, but the CBO isn't stating anything other than HOURS WORKS declining.

People will drop out and be replaced 100% which will have a positive effect on the UE rate in two ways: people leaving workforce, people finding a job. But those those actually affect the CBO's numbers on hours.

What will happen is people will stop working OT or will work 38 hours instead of 40 or possibly take more sick/vacation days if possible and THIS won't be recovered (at least no without higher wages offered).

People actually quitting will be replaced and will have a net zero effect on labor hours. It's the small business owner who will work less hours or the worker who can take an extra unpaid sick day or two that the CBO is arguing for a reduction in hours.

If they can continue to be equally productive with fewer hours, then good on them, they earned that time off. But if collective productivity decreases, then that actually leads to more jobs to meet the total productivity needed.

Isn't that right? The same idea as allowing sick and vacation leave causing an increase in overall employment. The same amount of work is needed to be done, but it is done by more people working fewer hours each, rather than fewer people working more hours each.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Americans overwhelmingly favor a bill that would give most undocumented immigrants a pathway towards citizenship, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority of the public says that the government's main focus should be legalizing the status of the undocumented rather than border security.

According to the poll, 54% say the top priority for the government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration should be developing a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants with jobs to eventually become legal U.S. residents. Just over four in ten questioned say the main focus should be developing a plan for stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here.

The Democratic-controlled Senate last year passed a bipartisan illegal immigration bill that included an eventual pathway towards citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. According to the poll, more than eight in 10 support such a plan. There is little partisan divide, with 88% of Democrats, 81% of independents and 72% of Republicans in agreement.

One idea House Republicans are considering is giving undocumented immigrants legal status to stay in the U.S., but not allow them a pathway towards citizenship. According to the survey, only 35% support such an idea, with just over six in 10 opposed. Again, there was no partisan divide, with two-thirds of Democrats and around six in 10 independents and Republicans opposing such a plan.

What policy does the GOP have that's popular and the Dems are opposed to? How do they still get elected?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...athway-to-citizenship-trumps-border-security/

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://firstlook.org/#/blog


Empty Wheel going to the new Commie News Outlet