General Political Thread

[bleedorange]

Not to change the subject, but Skate has a pretty good article about THE Welfare Queen brought up by the Reagan campaigns. It's really quite illuminating and she is not quite who she was portrayed to be...she was much worse, sort of a gypsy type of swindler. It really is worth the read.

 

That was a fascinating story.

[KevinG]

Not to change the subject, but Skate has a pretty good article about THE Welfare Queen brought up by the Reagan campaigns. It's really quite illuminating and she is not quite who she was portrayed to be...she was much worse, sort of a gypsy type of swindler. It really is worth the read.

 

Here is the story for those that are interested and not too familiar with Skate Slate.  

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

 

It amazes me that this woman, who illegally gamed the system, became synonymous with all of the problems of welfare and perpetuated the myth that all Welfare recipients are takers and mooches on the hard earning tax payer. 

[John Smith]

Most people think that welfare cheating was the sum of her existence, but she did so much more and far more heinous things in her life. She was seemingly always looking to fleece whomever she encountered and was always looking for the next victim. Welfare cheating was the least of it, but that's what got people's attention and she was used to paint all welfare recipients with the same brush strokes . Amazingly guys like Bernie Madoff are bad apples and never used as examples of a whole class, yet they probably touch more lives for more $$ over time.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

So, this is kind of interesting, for those who are following along with the Affordable Care Act numbers:

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20131221-obamacare-sign-ups-picking-up-steam-in-texas.ece

 

The article notes that almost a quarter million Texans completed applications but did not pick a plan; by contrast, 14,000 completed applications and picked a plan. Wonder what is keeping people who applied from picking a plan.

[LouieB]

Heard a guy from the WS Journal bash ACA on a right wing talk show this morning. Apparently the free market can take care of everyone's healthcare needs. Hmmmm. What stopped them before the ACA? (And what is stopping them now?)

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

The article notes that almost a quarter million Texans completed applications but did not pick a plan; by contrast, 14,000 completed applications and picked a plan. Wonder what is keeping people who applied from picking a plan.

Probably the same thing that kept kept people from having insurance in the past: the cost.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I haven't spent much time on the site - I am one of those rare weirdos who actually wants the thing to work, so I don't want to be part of the problem of the site being overloaded - but I found it odd that so many applied but so few selected a plan. I guess that means that the costs are not shown until the end of the app process.

 

Sad, because there must be a lot of people who would need insurance but cannot afford it, even through the ACA. Maybe the tax credits are not enough for them, or they are not understanding that part. I believe the article also noted that TX has something like 5-million uninsured residents. Those are a lot of our fellow citizens who are just SOL if they get sick.

[Hixter]

Sad, because there must be a lot of people who would need insurance but cannot afford it, even through the ACA.

So the government's solution is to make them pay a penalty. Makes perfect sense.

[John Smith]

We are SOL when they get sick because we end up paying for whatever care they get through higher costs and premiums, which is the way it always has been. Sounds like the traditional free market approach is more socialism than not.

[KevinG]

Probably the same thing that kept kept people from having insurance in the past: the cost.

 

I wonder if the costs would have been lower if Texas embraced ACA rather than thwart it at ever possible opportunity.  All evidence points to states who have supported ACA are seeing lower costs.  

 

Health Insurance in this country will never be free, people are going to have to pay for it.  Also even with its rocky start it appears that ACA is here to stay.  Maybe congress will actually try to make it better.  I boy can dream can't he?

 

[John Smith]

That's correct. If they actively participated though there would have been negative political fallout because it worked and they said it wouldn't. Whereas if they don't participate and it behaves as it is doing the pols can say see we told you so. They make no secrets about wanting it to fail.

[LouieB]

Health Insurance in this country will never be free, people are going to have to pay for it.  Also even with its rocky start it appears that ACA is here to stay.  Maybe congress will actually try to make it better.  I boy can dream can't he?

 

Dream on. Dissatisfaction with it is rampant on both ends of the political spectrum. While I agree that it is here to stay, I don't think there is the political will to make it really better. If people get something from it in the short and long term I think it will survive, but if through real and imagined dissatisfaction Congress coul change hands in the mid-term (the Senate) and then look for it to be gutted.

 

I am waiting to find out if my daughter, who has been accepted for it, can finally nail down a policy. For those not at the poverty line (like my daughter) it may not prove to be viable, thus creating an additional level of political backlash. I was discussing this with leftish friends last night who are underemployed and have a family and still they don't seem able to find a policy that is reasonably priced.

 

I am still trying to fathom how the bullshit line of "let the market decide" works, since it has not worked up to this point but according to the critics say it could work in the future. Seems like bullshit in thin air to me.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

I don't necessarily agree with him, but Rand Paul's Festivus tweets were pretty fun to read.  

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/23/rand-paul-celebrates-festivus-by-airing-grievances-on-twitter/

[KevinG]

Since the Politics 2014 thread was unceremoniously closed, I guess it is time to revive this one, in all its nastiness.  

 

So anyone care to discuss "Bridge-gate?"  

 

It is interested because of the nature of who it involves, the current GOP front runner.  Personally I see this in a context of of the Benghazi thing.  A politically motivated story trying to discredit a presidential front runner.  Sure there are people in Christie's administration that are probably at fault and should be dealt with accordingly and probably will be dealt with.  

 

But here is the thing regardless of the motivation it does not paint Christie in a good light.  I guess there are two possible scenarios 1. Christie had no knowledge of the bridge closing (which appear to be politically motivated) or 2. Christie did have knowledge.  If it is option 1 he looks foolish and doesn't seem to have control over his staff.  If it is 2 then what a D-Bag, this is not how a governor should act and he will have trouble in 2016.  

 

So anyone care?     

[Winston Legthigh]

He's screwed.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I probably shouldn't even wade in, much less weigh in...I get too attached to how people respond sometimes. One of my New Year's resolutions is to just not engage in nastiness, so I will do my best here especially.

 

Bridge-gate. Not sure it's that big a deal, but plenty of others would disagree. Emergency responders unable to get to their destinations fast enough, etc. From a political standpoint today, it looks like a win for the Dems no matter what, but Christie apologized. Americans love a redemption story, no matter how small. There are much deeper issues with Christie's history than this one.

 

As for the other things you mentioned (in the other thread):

 

1) Lack of action on the unemployment insurance should be a win for the Dems, too, but it won't. In both parties, the politicians will play to their base (and to their basest instincts. Good one, eh?). For the Dems, it's those greedy rich Republicans causing already-hurting people to starve, go homeless, etc.; for the Repubes, it's throwing good money away on lazy takers.

 

2) Gates' new book is not exactly a beat-up-on-Obama tome, but that aspect of it got covered in the press. I think his timing is shitty. For one, it was an honor to be asked to be Sec. of Defense by your rival party and to serve in that capacity. Two, Obama has been nothing but gracious (at least publicly) about Gates' service. Three, it's not really possible to accurately judge a President's term when it hasn't ended yet. He should have waited until 2015 at the earliest. The right may love it, but I think both Dems and independents will think he looks like a douche.

 

3) I may be the only liberal who is not in favor of pot being legal for recreational use. Well, one caveat: if you're going to legalize that, you should just go ahead and legalize every other drug too. Then when the people who are addicts need help, get them the help they need. I hate the stench of weed already, so the prospect of having it everywhere is beyond annoying. By the way, people are no doubt buying it all up in Colorado and taking it across state lines to sell elsewhere, so that creates a whole other mess.

[Atticus]

3) I may be the only liberal who is not in favor of pot being legal for recreational use. Well, one caveat: if you're going to legalize that, you should just go ahead and legalize every other drug too. 

 

don't forget, it's the gateway drug.  once legislators legalize weed, soon after they will be legalizing crack and heroin.

[Winston Legthigh]

 By the way, people are no doubt buying it all up in Colorado and taking it across state lines to sell elsewhere, so that creates a whole other mess.

 

So people who are willing to break Federal Law (who weren't before?) are presenting their ID to legally buy CO pot, a 1/4oz at a time, to bring back to sell in their home state?

 

If they're going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be easier just to get the illegal pot that was already present in their home state?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

So people who are willing to break Federal Law (who weren't before?) are presenting their ID to legally buy CO pot, a 1/4oz at a time, to bring back to sell in their home state?

 

If they're going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be easier just to get the illegal pot that was already present in their home state?

I never said they were coming from another state to do this.

[Winston Legthigh]

I never said they were coming from another state to do this. You have to read the black parts on the page.

OK, so a CO citizen, is going to show their ID to buy legal weed, taxes and all, 1 oz at a time, to drive across the border to sell?

 

1) Wouldn't an enterprising bootlegger have a better business model?

 

2) Isn't there enough illegal weed EVERYWHERE that would be cheaper to buy than the taxed CO stuff?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Maybe the legal stuff is very high grade, and worth paying more for. And regulation would lead one to believe it is relatively unadulterated.

 

http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/01/08/colorado-marijuana-stores-see-steady-business-dwindling-inventory/2333/

 

 

 

More than 10,000 people bought marijuana at Colorado’s recreational pot shops on Jan. 1, according to industry estimates and tallies provided by the stores. And, while that initial surge was expected, the sustained interest was not. Brown and several other store owners said they saw only a slight drop-off in sales in the days after Jan. 1.

 

Come on, even Tommy Chong can't buy that much pot, can he?

[KevinG]

So people who are willing to break Federal Law (who weren't before?) are presenting their ID to legally buy CO pot, a 1/4oz at a time, to bring back to sell in their home state?

 

If they're going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be easier just to get the illegal pot that was already present in their home state?

 

I agree

 

OK, so a CO citizen, is going to show their ID to buy legal weed, taxes and all, 1 oz at a time, to drive across the border to sell?

 

1) Wouldn't an enterprising bootlegger have a better business model?

 

2) Isn't there enough illegal weed EVERYWHERE that would be cheaper to buy than the taxed CO stuff?

 

I actually saw a news story about how the illegal weed trade isn't going away in CO.  It is generally cheaper and of higher grade.  Apparently the legal weed shops are putting out shitty product to keep up with demand.  

 

Regardless it is a step in in the right direction.  Though it still is an experiment.  It is too early to call it a success.  It will be interesting to see the effect 2, 5 or 10 years down the line.  

[Winston Legthigh]

Apparently the legal weed shops are putting out shitty product to keep up with demand.  

 

 If the dispensaries are growing it themselves (they are) then I doubt it's shitty product. Maybe it's not the cream of the crop, but it's far from schwag. Shitty product is grown wild outdoors, and has a shitload of seeds. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 If the dispensaries are growing it themselves (they are) then I doubt it's shitty product. Maybe it's not the cream of the crop, but it's far from schwag. Shitty product is grown wild outdoors, and has a shitload of seeds. 

You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do. I will defer to your opinion.

[Winston Legthigh]

You sound like you know a lot more about this than I do. I will defer to your opinion.

I just think that if Joe Citizen Colorado gets it in his head that hell, there's gold in them thar plants, and he wants to try his hand at bootlegging, he's going to find that setting up an out-of-state network is difficult as hell, and not profitable if his start-up costs are already high (so to speak). Bootlegging profits are derived from volume, and Joe Citizen isn't set up to distribute in volume.

 

On the other hand, Joe Criminal Colorado, who might already have a distribution network set up, is going to ignore the high-priced legal stuff, and continue with the underground product, which is cheaper, and doesn't require him to provide his ID before buying. 

 

All to say that there are probably some dumbshits who will definitely buy high and try to sell higher (again, so to speak), but my guess is that the high price, and lack of volume will keep the legal weed mostly in Colorado. The situation would be different if there wasn't any way to get weed at all outside of Colorado.