Magox

I am looking forward to the race, should be very entertaining. But more importantly, it should lead to a lot of introspection among conservative voters and hopefully the conservative media hucksters influence will be more diminished.

I'm surprised OC believes Trump has a real shot at winning the general election. He doesn't.

Wow

We've been reading about this for years and I have yet to see any proof that suggests the government is involved in a coordinated scheme to spy on its citizens for the nefarious purposes that Greg believes it to be.

This is unlawful and it's not something that the government is in on, but rather some rogue agents breaking the law for their own purposes. Nothing I have ever read about the NSA surveillance program has ever shown me that the government has attempted and/or been approved by FISA to spy on its own citizens for any purposes outside of its intended goal. All I have read is a few security experts that assume that some wrongdoing is occuring and instances of rogue agents abusing the tools that are available to them. That is why I was asking if you could copy and paste me some of the instances that you were referring to that show a systematic legal breach of peoples privacy. Yes, you could make an argument that a few agents breaking the law is a systematic breach, but I don't consider that to be an example of what I am talking about. I am referring to a coordinated effort by the government to snoop on its own citizens to "remain in power" as you say. I have never read anything close to being definitive backing what you claim, aside from assumptions. I will gladly change my view on this if I could actually see proof of your assertions.

I read through that link and there is nothing definitive that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy in there. The closest thing that I found other than a few security experts assumptions of systemic breaches was an instance where a FISA judge questioned the government's possible overreach on a particular case. I must have missed it, can you copy and paste me where there is a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy from that link or anywhere else? Data collection in a lock box doesn't count. To believe what you are propagating is to believe that several different levels of government are in on a systemic scheme of spying on US citizens. From the Judicial branch (in which FISA has to sign off on it), intelligence services, congress to the executive branch. In other words, it would be conspiratorial. Aside from the NSA's clear objective of protecting the homeland, what is the motive behind the NSA to do what you believe that they do? It appears from what you have been saying and definitely in that link (which by the way, they somehow make the connection that white judges are to blame and considering that they made the racial link, I'm guessing they are insinuating that white people don't care about matters of privacy) that the NSA has been collecting data under the guise of fighting terror. So why is there a conspiracy from the government to "snoop" on US citizens if it isn't for protecting the homeland?

Give me an example of what Snowden leaked that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I don't doubt what you say, just would like to know of these troves of information that show otherwise.

100%. Both sides do it. That's what I implied.

Are you referring to the spying?

What you and other liberals are proposing is a wealth distribution scheme on the private sector by federal fiat. If A has the money, lets mandate them to share more of the pie to B. Which should equal more economic growth, right? Considering that A will just horde their money and stuff it away somewhere in Panama, doing no good for the overall well being of the economy. Whereas if they just shared the wealth by mandate, B the deserving party will actually use that money and pump it back into the economy. That's the thinking, right? I say this in all seriousness, liberal economic orthodoxy is so linear and full of holes. Anyone thinking that the government is going to help drive the economy through some sort of minimum wage scheme really has no grasp of the economy. The minimum wage is there in my view to help stop abuses by some employers, not as some sort of economic panacea. It's a regulatory measure to help around the edges, nothing more.

If the government is monitoring our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7, it's not because of any sort of legislation or executive action instituted by the government, but because of some rogue government employees abusing the tools provided to them. There is no legal form of monitoring of our phone calls, movement or correspondence only unless there is reasonable suspicion of potential harm to the homeland. In other words, there is nothing different today than at any time before us other than improved technology. Storing data in a lock box does not constitute a breach of privacy.

I'm still trying to figure out whose fault the 2008 economic collapse should be attributed to.

I think it's becoming clearer by the day that federal one-size-fits-all mandates are impractical and nonsensical. I know it gets old hearing conservatives push for states rights solutions, but if you really think about it, makes a whole lot more sense. If the federal government wants to get involved and push the country a certain direction, they shouldn't do it through these mandates, but more so with a carrot and stick approach through incentives.

Who is responsible for the 2008 economic collapse?

Which is precisely one of the main problems with instituting a minimum "living wage". I had posted something considerably longer largely on this very same topic and at the last moment decided to delete it. For arguments sake, lets just say that a minimum federal "living wage" is $18 an hour. Which of course means that this is the new minimum wage for low skill workers such as burger flippers, cashiers etc. That is approximately about a 100% increase above the old minimum wage. How many higher skilled positions exist today between the current minimum wage and the new proposed $18 an hour "living wage"? Tons, right? So of course, this would mean that virtually all these positions would need to be raised substantially, correct? How does every small business and corporation absorb such a cost? Even the really profitable companies, do they just eat it? Of course not, they probably cut some costs around the edges (such as benefits for employees) and raise the cost of the underlying product or service they provide. What about the semi profitable companies? They cut costs and benefits for their employees, raise costs of their products and probably look at ways to cut human capital. Less Jobs, more automation. What about those borderline profitable companies? Many of those simply go under. Any new startup will now look at a brand new huge obstacle along with the healthcare law as impediments to succeeding. The cost of capital opportunity suddenly becomes that much more risky. Without doubt, you get less startups, innovation and less overall job creation. Jobs that are being provided should never be about a "living wage" but a fair wage. I can't think of a more fair system than the market dictating your value. It's not perfect and there are certain cases and instances that employers abuse the market for their purposes. But just like anything in a market, sometimes prices get over inflated and vice versa under priced but at the end of the day they end up correcting themselves to a more optimum price level. Same as the job market.

I support reforms that address many of the undocumented immigrants that are here, I do not support a president who unilaterally tries to do it on his own, specially one of this magnitude. Executive orders I've always believed were to supposed to help around the edges, this takes it to a whole new level. Something like this should go through the proper channels of how government typically works, and if you don't have the votes, too bad. It will most likely be overturned.

It will be blocked, as it should.

I assume that many uber liberals such as yourself think this way...... "How can anyone support a policy if it doesn't clearly and linearly help them?"

It doesn't.

Aside from Robert "I'm a huge socialist" Reich, who are these people? Never heard of them. Even the president, you know the guys economic policies you completely support, even his top economic men think Sander's economic plans consist of flying unicorns that fart rainbows.

I've taken heat on this board for being sympathetic towards being sympathetic to increases in the minimum wage. It's not that I'm enamored with the minimum wage just that as a realist I understand it is here to stay and taking that in mind, it cannot stay static as daily living costs continuously are going higher. But now the argument being made by liberal lawmakers and pundits have shifted to a "living wage". Not sure how you can calculate that, specially on a federal one-size-fits-all basis. But whatever that number would be most likely would be disastrous for jobs, would lead to higher prices and less people would be willing to take a risk with their capital for startups. And every time someone advocates for bigger social welfare programs are they going to tie in the "Panama papers" to it? Actually, it doesn't. "Stop demonizing the IRS" is not a real solution.

That is exactly what it is. He has said as much, but his cult-like followers either don't care or somehow just choose not to hear it. For crying out loud, he criticized Mitt Romney for being "too harsh" on Latino's, he was for the Dream Act, he literally said one month before the Syrian issue that we "Have to" allow Syrian refugees into the country.

The removal of the risk corridor (aka insurer bailout) was a significant development, as that was used to absorb the losses from the carriers. Considering that there is a better than decent chance that Hillary will be president and that she truly is more of a centrist at heart than Obama, she will probably look to strike a deal with congressional republicans. The GOP has TONS of leverage when it comes to reshaping the ACA, one cannot overstate the impact that the removal of the risk corridors is having on the confidence of the private insurers desire to stay on the exchange and ride out the "losses". From my experience the insurance mandate is not a big driver of the new enrollees on the ACA exchange. Most people that are enrolling on the ACA plans is because they either A) couldn't afford it before and now the subsidies make it possible for them to obtain coverage or B) They couldn't obtain coverage due to pre existing medical conditions. Congressional republicans should seek to: 1) Strip away the mandate, even though that will be a tough concession to get out of the democrats. 2) modify the "minimum essential benefits" such as the paternalistic measures of mandating all coverage provide maternity coverage 3) Strip out the medical device taxes 4) See if they can remove some of the regulations that prevent the competition across state borders and some additional tort reform. I think the only thing the Republicans have to give up is to add back in the risk corridor provision that was in the first year. Seems like an awful lot to give up for Democrats for just one provision, but again it cannot be overstated how important the removal of those risk corridors has impacted the attitudes of carriers. United Healthcare is bailing because of it, and others are either following suit or have closed shop.

It is truly unbelievable that he has been able to dupe as many people as he has, a once-in-a-life-time chameleon. Trump will be studied as a subject matter for political science majors over the next century. The art of the political con Chapter one The manipulation of media and its impact on voters minds

Yes, the Carter administration was the peak of the middle class. Good times.