Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

I'm going to work so I'll answer the rest of your post later, but I'll respond to this part. If they had replaced penalties with taxes then they would have had a lot stronger case in the supreme court. But they didn't...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

My point about subjectivity is not about bias per se. Of course, bias plays a role in subjective judgment. But as I have stated over and again in this particular discussion, my point is about the inherent subjectivity -- independent of all other things -- of deciding the so-called "constitutionality" of anything that is not specifically referenced in the Constitution. I was criticizing the definitive statement "it is unconstitutional" being used by you, or anyone else prior to a ruling, as a statement of fact, rather than "my judgment, based on the arguments, is that this is constitutional," which is a statement of opinion. And, after all, isn't what the Supreme Court issues an OPINION?

As for recusal, why shouldn't Clarence Thomas recuse himself, too? He and his wife have both benefited from specific political contributions made to his wife's organization from people who have made their particular desire to see the Affordable Care Act overturned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[transjen]

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

Excellent. I hear the insurance Cheney has also fully covers getting accidentally shot in the face by a "friend."

[franalexes]

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.

The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.

The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?

I'm no fan of Obama or of the ice cream you describe, judging from its flavor composition, but I bet it's no better or worse than the ice cream they serve at the Republican National Committee's ice cream stand. There, only rich people can actually buy ice cream, but the 99% are encouraged to sit on the ground at their feet as the rich eat, hoping to get some ice cream as the hot sun makes it "trickle down" into their waiting mouths.

Needless to say, it's cold as hell at the RNC ice cream stand, by design, and nothing ever trickles down.

[franalexes]

"keep the change".

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

, and nothing ever trickles down.

I was wondering about that. A lot of people are waiting for the stimulus to Solyndra to trickle down.

And remeber the "cash for clunkers",,,,,,,,it's harder now, for 99% as you call them, to get used parts to repair their cars.

trickle down may not work in your community but trickle up poverty is doing well.

[ulyssesgrant50]

Originally Posted by franalexes

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.

The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?

Wow, Giffords. That brings great memories. Are there any of their stores left? I remember the name being reused a few times, a couple of stores that I've not seen recently, and a retail distribution.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by ulyssesgrant50

Wow, Giffords. That brings great memories. Are there any of their stores left? I remember the name being reused a few times, a couple of stores that I've not seen recently, and a retail distribution.

There is still a Giffords store where I live. It's a spring ritual when the store opens up for the first day of the season, they give out free scoops of ice cream all day.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by franalexes

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.

The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?

OMG that was too funy!! true, butt funny

[GRH]

I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):

Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.

That is one side of my brain. The other side of my brain is not so naive as to believe that just because you outlaw discrimination that it actually goes away. Even in communities where there is no overt racism or discrimination, certain minorities are cogs in a machine that by design puts them at disadvantage economically, educationally, etc. The whole "white, male privilege" thing. Racism was so institutionalized in our nation's past that entire communities of African Americans will never have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.

I'm always of these two minds. I guess I feel that affirmative action is too blunt a sword for a job that requires a precise knife blade. I can see where AA is a good thing and perhaps still needed in some capacity, but I'm also not convinced that the way it is currently administered is the best course. With that said, my preferred method of combating institutionalized disadvantage is no more popular with our conservative friends. I feel that poverty remains one of the biggest institutions that people struggle to ever break free from. I don't have solid solutions for creating upward socioeconomic mobility-- but I have NO PROBLEM redistributing the wealth downward. It's patently false that the majority of poor people (which includes many blacks) are lazy and just want to live on the government cheese train.

Regarding diversity in general, having spent much of my life in and around academia, I really value diversity in our universities and schools. And I guess I agree with you that these institutions should probably be more diverse than the surrounding demographics might suggest. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):

Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.

That is one side of my brain. The other side of my brain is not so naive as to believe that just because you outlaw discrimination that it actually goes away. Even in communities where there is no overt racism or discrimination, certain minorities are cogs in a machine that by design puts them at disadvantage economically, educationally, etc. The whole "white, male privilege" thing. Racism was so institutionalized in our nation's past that entire communities of African Americans will never have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.

I'm always of these two minds. I guess I feel that affirmative action is too blunt a sword for a job that requires a precise knife blade. I can see where AA is a good thing and perhaps still needed in some capacity, but I'm also not convinced that the way it is currently administered is the best course. With that said, my preferred method of combating institutionalized disadvantage is no more popular with our conservative friends. I feel that poverty remains one of the biggest institutions that people struggle to ever break free from. I don't have solid solutions for creating upward socioeconomic mobility-- but I have NO PROBLEM redistributing the wealth downward. It's patently false that the majority of poor people (which includes many blacks) are lazy and just want to live on the government cheese train.

Regarding diversity in general, having spent much of my life in and around academia, I really value diversity in our universities and schools. And I guess I agree with you that these institutions should probably be more diverse than the surrounding demographics might suggest. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.

It is so nice to have reasoned discourse for a change.

I would like to make just one point regarding one thing you write:

"And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.

I am afraid this is not "Republican bullshit." Rather, it is the very core of the misguided ideology of American exceptionalism and individualism, and it is inculcated into us from a very young age. It is why Americans, unlike nearly everyone else in the world, have no sense of social solidarity. It is why Americans are so easily convinced to act against their own economic interests by those who control the wealth. And it is why ours is the only advanced country in the world that does not recognize the right to and extraordinarily social value of things such as universal healthcare, national standards for education (regardless of where you live, ungoverned by property values), and so on.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):

Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.

I'm more concerned when they give the job to an underqualified black person in order to fill a quota.

ie...
White firefighters in New Haven, Conn., passed an exam for a job promotion only to have the test results thrown out because no African-American candidate received a high enough score to also be considered for promotion.

The Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Washington who was denied by the university's law school twice. There were, however 30 minority-group students with lower grades and aptitude scores that were granted admission.

In HUD, white employees are routinely denied promotions so the agency can hire 382.9% more blacks than in the civilian work force.

etc etc etc...

In a situation where you have two applicants, one white, one black, and they're both equally qualified, and your employees do not match the local demographics, then yeah, give the job to the black person. But that's about as far as I would take affirmative action. But don't screen out much more qualified people who happen to be white.

Originally Posted by GRH

Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual.

That's another thing... you or anyone else could say this and generally no one would think twice about it. Now think of what the response would be if I said:
New Orleans is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-black individual.

Oh, now THAT is racist.

NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - racist
White History Month - racist
National Society of White Engineers - racist

When people see someone like Herman Cain, do they assume the presidency of Godfather's Pizza was given to him because he is black? If I were him I'd be pretty insulted by that given that he's a highly capable individual who probably earned his position there.

I think there's a perception that Charles Bolden, head of Nasa (and the guy who said Nasa's foremost mission was to help Muslims feel better about themselves), was an affirmative action pick because he's a complete joke. But wait... sure he's qualified... he was an astronaut for cristsakes! Uh... yeah... He was an astronaut... when the shuttle program was starting off and Nasa needed to show that space flight was routine and quiet criticisms that all their astronauts before had been black.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm more concerned when they give the job to an underqualified black person in order to fill a quota.

I have no problem with quotas so long as they are something we agree to socially, as a nation. And if the discussion of affirmative action was an honest one, rather than charged with the falsehoods that its opponents use to paint it a certain way, I have every confidence that Americans would support a more robust, rigorous affirmative action.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That's another thing... you or anyone else could say this and generally no one would think twice about it. Now think of what the response would be if I said:
New Orleans is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-black individual.

Oh, now THAT is racist.

Of course, when you take GRH's comment out of the context of an honest, respectful discussion about affirmative action, you can make her sound like a racist. And that's precisely my point above.

Well played.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by GRH

.

. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.

You make that sound like it's the fault of Maine people. Good luck trying to say that "off campus". You'll probably hear," Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Not so many years ago a student with good grades applied at UMO and was refused. He applied again but checked the box that he was part "Native American". He was accepted.

While Maine may be white, it is also heavily French Canadian.(no color there) I think it is a natural tendency for some people to discriminate in anything that is different to them.
Color, nationality, religion, sex, weight, dress, attitudes and personal choices, all play a role in our response to other people.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

Don't confuse Cheney's healthcare as former VP with the healthcare we would all get under Obamacare. And don't think for a minute that every 71 year old needing a heart transplant would get one under Obamacare.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Don't confuse Cheney's healthcare as former VP with the healthcare we would all get under Obamacare. And don't think for a minute that every 71 year old needing a heart transplant would get one under Obamacare.

Of course, Jen's point about 71-year-olds never implied that all who needed a heart transplant would get one under "Obamacare." She was making a broader point about government-provided healthcare. And you can rest assured TracyCoxx knew that was her point ... but didn't let it get in the way of making his point by falsely implying (yes, IMPLYING) something in her post that wasn't there, and thus falsely attributing it to Jen by inference.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, Jen's point about 71-year-olds never implied that all who needed a heart transplant would get one under "Obamacare." She was making a broader point about government-provided healthcare.

Sorry, I couldn't find Jen's point about 71-year-olds. Could you post it please?

All I could find is this:

Originally Posted by transjen

But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

This is where she was saying a GOP camera crew should go into Cheney's private room and tell americans how government ran/sponsored healthcare paid all his bills for his heart transplant. Then she says he'd say "but you won't like it". What's 'it' in this context? Government ran/sponsored health care. Is that the same government ran/sponsored health care she just mentioned? No it's not is it, but she seemed to imply that it was. Next time I think Jen would be better qualified to interpret what she meant. I kind of thought she'd be more than able to understand what I wrote and reply for herself anyway. I guess that's just me though.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Sorry, I couldn't find Jen's point about 71-year-olds. Could you post it please?

It's the point about 71-year-old Cheney. You know exactly what was meant. But why let that get in the way of you shitting on a serious discussion? I imagine you sitting all alone, smugly thinking that you've bested everyone by pointing out that Jen never used the exact phrase "71-year-old," and believing that somehow you have won. But all you've really done is prove to that you are a miserable troll. I've said it before and I say it again. You've only been indulged for some reason I don't understand, but I stand by this characterization and say enough is enough.

Go ahead ... complain to the site owner about the words I just used. My argument will be this. The rule about not "insulting" other members shouldn't apply to someone who insults the entire site, and offers nothing here except provocation.

Read on...

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

All I could find is this:
This is where she was saying a GOP camera crew should go into Cheney's private room and tell americans how government ran/sponsored healthcare paid all his bills for his heart transplant. Then she says he'd say "but you won't like it". What's 'it' in this context? Government ran/sponsored health care. Is that the same government ran/sponsored health care she just mentioned? No it's not is it, but she seemed to imply that it was. Next time I think Jen would be better qualified to interpret what she meant. I kind of thought she'd be more than able to understand what I wrote and reply for herself anyway. I guess that's just me though.

Jen is one of the most highly valued members of this site. I have no doubt that she would be the first one to tell you that perfect writing in English is not her strongest suit. But you use that as a cudgel against her because you disrespect her, and you disrespect her because she has opinions that differ from yours and is not afraid to state them. And that makes you the very embodiment of everything that's wrong with discourse in this country.

You make me want to vomit.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

But as I have stated over and again in this particular discussion, my point is about the inherent subjectivity -- independent of all other things -- of deciding the so-called "constitutionality" of anything that is not specifically referenced in the Constitution.

And as I have responded, amendments have been made to the constitution to allow certain laws which were declared unconstitutional because they had no basis in the constitution. Don't you think that says something about laws being made that aren't specifically referenced in the constitution?

Originally Posted by smc

And, after all, isn't what the Supreme Court issues an OPINION?

I was under the impression that they issued rulings. They will explain their position as an "opinion". But realize that this is different than the casual usage of opinion and that terms may have different meanings in the context of law. A "judicial opinion" or "opinion of the court" is an explanation of the order or ruling which lays out the rational and legal principles that the justice relied (in principle, not personal opinion) on in reaching their decision.

Originally Posted by smc

As for recusal, why shouldn't Clarence Thomas recuse himself, too? He and his wife have both benefited from specific political contributions made to his wife's organization

I have no idea what his wife's organization is.