|
bpower posted:Name two. Well, they think they're serious intellectuals. I should have said something like major activists and conservative voices. The article names three. Republican strategist Rick Wilson Club for Growth President David McIntosh Craig Robinson, a conservative activist and blogger
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Chris Christie posted:3. Require Medicare to run in the black, with the income-based formula being adjusted as often as every single year if necessary based on the prior years' expenses and funding (i.e. prevent private insurance from being destroyed via Medicare being artificially underpriced via running massive deficits). Write the law so that this provision is not severable, i.e. Democrats would never be able to destroy the private insurance industry by waiting until they once again hold the presidency and both houses at the same time, and then altering the law to allow the program to run in the red and severely undercharge payings customers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Congress can handicap itself this way without a constitutional amendment. Severability is used in legislation to guide how the courts break up a law that is found unconstitutional. It can't be used to bind a future Congress to be unable to enact whatever laws they like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:What I want to hear doesn't matter since I'll never hear it, but my personal preference would be: Thats great, but why not just tax the bollox off the rich, build a world class public health system and let the rich go to their private hospitals if they wish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Chic-fil-a was totally off my radar before any of that stuff. I thought it was just a run of the mill B-list fast food joint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Chic-fil-a was totally off my radar before any of that stuff. I thought it was just a run of the mill B-list fast food joint. it's pretty overpriced tbh know where i can get waffle fries for cheaper tho?? seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Congress can handicap itself this way without a constitutional amendment. Severability is used in legislation to guide how the courts break up a law that is found unconstitutional. It can't be used to bind a future Congress to be unable to enact whatever laws they like. They wouldn't be handicapping themselves. A future congress could always vote to repeal the entire thing, and vote to institute a new system, which was almost identical, except allowing the program to run in the red. I know for sure that they could not include a provision saying a/the law cannot be repealed. BUT you could be right. I have no idea as to the constitutionality of congress making a part of a law inseverable. Not my area of expertise, I stuck to tax law and securities law courses. Basic con law required courses don't cover jack-****.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Then they shouldn't be doing it. ^^^^ 10000 times
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Chic-fil-a was totally off my radar before any of that stuff. I thought it was just a run of the mill B-list fast food joint. Their nuggets taste good
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
remember their donations to anti-gay camps and movements? lamao
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Their nuggets taste good They came with my meal plan
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Chic-fil-a was totally off my radar before any of that stuff. I thought it was just a run of the mill B-list fast food joint. around here its the best fast food no contest, but its still fast food
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Shockingly, Ted Cruz doesn't seem to be backing down from his assertion that Obama is the greatest sponsor of terrorism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p43SMI-4Tf4
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer Yeah, that is about the best they have. Which just goes to show that there is no such animal as a conservative serious intellectual. And LMFAO at the notion that Trump is anywhere near the center. Only in America can tepid non-statements about "taking care of our people" be sprinkled into a vast soup of racist, sexist, fiscally conservative stupidity and be seriously called "centrist" by anybody. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Trump to bring back water boarding "SERE training for everyone" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-plays-expectations-im-debater/story?id=32833152
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:How loving chickenshit do you have to be to be afraid of the public knowing your name when you are literally untouchable by the common person. Piece of poo poo cowards. Because a newspaper may print a story saying mean things about them and then they will be sad during breakfast.  It's pretty hilarious that these billionaires are being secretive with their donations that are going to candidates who will complain about the Obama administration's lack of transparency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:They're like Eigenvalues, but with less linear transformation and more Amtrak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:They wouldn't be handicapping themselves. A future congress could always vote to repeal the entire thing, and vote to institute a new system, which was almost identical, except allowing the program to run in the red. Right, this alone is enough to make such a provision pointless. But they couldn't even create a requirement that Congress would have to repeal the whole thing and then institute a new system. I don't believe they can prevent themselves from later performing even the simple convenience of merely amending the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
As indicated by others, the "dead gay son" post was a not so clever attempt at a humorous reference to a line from a movie that IS very clever, Heathers. Yeah, go see this movie. It's at least as funny as the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How is this different than the Democratic position (except the 'learn English' part, which I'm not entirely sure is legal)? The daylight between Democrats and sane Republicans on this issue is mostly as to whether to offer a path to citizenship, which is not addressed in that article. The big differences are: - The Bush plan would never let any of them become citizens, except under the normal process. They won't be deported, but they can't become citizens. So, they'd need to wait 12-16 years, get married to a U.S. citizen, or just be a permanent non-citizen with a work permit. - The Dem plan usually lets you apply to become a citizen as soon as you pay your fine and you can become one in about 6 years. - Bush would require people to "learn English" which probably means pass a written test. - Under the Bush plan, if you didn't want to be a permanent non-citizen or marry a U.S. citizen, you'd probably have to leave the country before you could get citizenship. The big difference between Bush's "moderate" position is that he will not deport all 12 million illegal immigrants and will instead let them stay as non-citizens who are banned from public assistance and voting. The normal Republican position is "deport them all." So, therefore the permanent underclass plan is the liberal option in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Why doesn't the US just adopt Canada's point-system for immigration? Have an education? You get points. Have a job placement already lined up? You get points. Speak both English and French? You get points. I think you also need to have like $10,000 in assets. And in Canada, Canadian citizens always get first preference in the hiring process over non-citizens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Trump to bring back water boarding "SERE training for everyone" "You could say my whole life is a debate, but I'm not a debater" Never stop, Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The big differences are: I'm not sure how allowing people to work legally, but not allowing them to vote or receive public assistance equates to a permanent underclass. My day to day experience with most immigrants is that they work 2 jobs and are always sending money home, not that they want to come here to go on welfare. How much does any of our votes really count? Many will probably end up marrying citizens anyway. Since the default position is crazy it almost seems reasonable, or do I dare say, well though out. I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I wonder if daddy Bush and Barbara go to bed at night lamenting that the wrong son ran for president in 2000?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Lines out the door at every Chik-Fil-A location in the country? Wasn't the issue putting a crimp in future expansion, especially out of the Southern region, and a worry that the immediate sympathetic increase wouldn't last long term? Sure your homophobic base is nice, but there's more money in keeping them and still getting the homos to come and eat at your place too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:I'm not sure how allowing people to work legally, but not allowing them to vote or receive public assistance equates to a permanent underclass. My day to day experience with most immigrants is that they work 2 jobs and are always sending money home, not that they want to come here to go on welfare. How much does any of our votes really count? Many will probably end up marrying citizens anyway. It's a "permanent underclass" because if you have no right to public assistance, then you have nothing to fall back on if you lose your job. So no matter how abusive your employer is, whether they assign you weird hours or cut your pay or just treat you like poo poo, you can't afford to quit. On the flip side, people on these permanent work visas would be attractive candidates for jobs precisely because their employers can pay them less and offer fewer benefits. So a plan like this both mistreats a large group of people and also takes away jobs from legal immigrants and citizens. But it's an attractive plan for big businesses, because even though they can hire illegal immigrants right now, Bush's plan would let them continue to underpay those same people while also removing the threat that their workers might get deported. And yeah, for Republicans, this is the liberal position. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:I'm not sure how allowing people to work legally, but not allowing them to vote or receive public assistance equates to a permanent underclass. You just explained literally why that makes them a permanent underclass. If it's impossible for them to ever vote or receive public assistance, they are an underclass, permanently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Zoran posted:It's a "permanent underclass" because if you have no right to public assistance, then you have nothing to fall back on if you lose your job. I think the word "permanent" may not be applicable when their children will be full citizens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think the word "permanent" may not be applicable when their children will be full citizens. Do they magically become their own children and gain their children's rights? Because that's the only way "but their kids can be citizens" could refute the permanent part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think the word "permanent" may not be applicable when their children will be full citizens. How does that help their own job prospects or rights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Zoran posted:How does that help their own job prospects or rights? It doesn't. I'm not defending it as a solution, but it doesn't create a population of people who are permanently part of an underclass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It doesn't. I'm not defending it as a solution, but it doesn't create a population of people who are permanently part of an underclass. Well, yeah, but if I'm reading you right, the population will only stop being an underclass because they'll die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Zoran posted:How does that help their own job prospects or rights? It doesn't, but it's still not a "permanent underclass", it's a temporary underclass which is still bad but not permanent
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think the word "permanent" may not be applicable when their children will be full citizens. That's where the 14 Amendment fuckery comes in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It doesn't. I'm not defending it as a solution, but it doesn't create a population of people who are permanently part of an underclass. Bob Ojeda posted:It doesn't, but it's still not a "permanent underclass", it's a temporary underclass If it lasts until they die, then it's permanent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
So Fishmech and I are using permanent to refer to one's membership in the class, and I think the rest of you are using it to refer to the class itself. Either way, it's bad, and totally anathema to American values.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If it lasts until they die, then it's permanent. I mean this is pretty much entirely a semantic disagreement so whatever, there's no actual disagreement here But my assumption when you say that there's a permanent underclass is that the class is permanent. That, if you create a permanent underclass, there will always be a group of citizens whose rights are taken away and who are exploited. That's the way I've seen it used. but, again, who gives a poo poo, everyone agrees that the Jeb Bush proposal would create a group of people who would never be able to get full legal rights no matter what, which is the relevant thing to talk about here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Well, yeah, but if I'm reading you right, the population will only stop being an underclass because they'll die. Zoran posted:So Fishmech and I are using permanent to refer to one's membership in the class, and I think the rest of you are using it to refer to the class itself. Either way, it's bad, and totally anathema to American values. Exactly, you two are talking about permanent membership in an underclass without the underclass itself being permanent. I'm not trying to make this a semantic argument, but rather to distinguish the problem from one where not even their children would be full citizens, which is what some conservatives argue for and is therefore worth distinguishing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Zoran posted:It's a "permanent underclass" because if you have no right to public assistance, then you have nothing to fall back on if you lose your job. So no matter how abusive your employer is, whether they assign you weird hours or cut your pay or just treat you like poo poo, you can't afford to quit. Not defending it, because of course you are right that public assistance = safety net. I wonder if they would be cut off from food stamps, but still get unemployment insurance? They would be paying into it from their jobs. But then again they would be paying taxes which presumably means they would be paying into the system there too, and they are clearly cut off from everything else. Again generalizing, but it's true enough of the time, it's common for immigrants, especially recent ones, to live in multi generational households and the family structure is the de facto safety net. The countries most are coming from don't have safety nets, that's the families job. Overall its not perfect but a lot better than we have now. To me, it just sounds so....trying to think of the right word here.....idn, maybe realistic? It doesn't have a chance with the average rabidly racist Republican primary voter. It's a gift to the big business faction though. Does that make it a 50/50 tossup then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
They really ought to use Medicare like the cudgel it is and force doctors to accept Medicaid patients or else they don't get Medicare/Tricare/etc funds. It's basically the same as rolling Mediaid into Medicare except there's still the otherizing-the-poor figleaf for conservatives to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Y/N? Lots of doctors lose money from medicare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Thundercock/Betacuck '16
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:17
|
|