View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Gary Horton: Something to which we can all agree

Posted: July 9, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 9, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Kathy Norris of the Valley Industry Association paid me a visit a few weeks ago as part of a local business survey.

Kathy hangs with business leaders who are overwhelmingly Republican, and there’s a good chance that in visiting me she was expecting to meet up with a wild-eyed crazed socialist, who like Obama, doesn’t have a real birth certificate and takes marching orders from Radio Moscow and Fidel Castro.

Well, not really — but see how what I described didn’t sound so different from today’s everyday outrageous political discourse?

Americans have learned to speak in exaggerated terms of what separates us, not of what unites us. We press our differences instead of collaborating toward common good.

We have become a fractured nation at war with itself, with special interest, political party, and, sadly, even race, locked in Internet wars, Super Pac wars, and pundit wars — fighting over power, influence, primacy.

We’re a nation of “My way or the highway,” and the dissonance, friction, and lost opportunity is tearing at our internal fabric and debasing our international status.

“One Nation Under God” has become a mockery as so many Americans view those unlike themselves as defective, unpatriotic, un-American, and even evil.

But back to Kathy from VIA. We discovered that, political labels aside, we share considerable commonality — as, in fact, most of us actually do once the mostly overstated, overheated rhetoric cools off.

We were discussing overarching concerns and the topic of civic mindedness came up. I told Kathy a story I remember from a family vacation to Finland we took a few years after my LDS mission to that country.

We’d been driving through never-ending forests when we stopped at one of Finland’s 50,000 lakes. Walking along a long sandy beach, we happened upon a small wooden rowboat set on a stand along the shore with oars placed neatly inside.

Painted on the side of this old wooden boat were the words “Pelastus Vene,” meaning “Rescue Boat.”

Carrie and I immediately recognized the uniqueness of this from our Californian eyes. That old wooden rescue boat had likely been on that shore unmolested for a decade or two.

Tens of thousands of Finns would have come and gone, and still that boat remained intact, undisturbed, undefiled, and unpilfered — ready for public service when needed.

Just think how long a small rescue skiff would last out on Malibu Beach or Castaic Lake if left to its own defense?

Pick its fate: within days or months it would be either graffiti-marred, broken or stolen. We’ve come to expect this kind of abuse of public assets in too many public settings.

And the abuse we tolerate upon public assets is too often also mimicked by the abuse we heap on each other.

Why has America become this way, where we tolerate ill treatment to our public property and even to one another? Where is our civility and our regard for our common public good?

Kathy and I agreed that the answer is surprisingly simple. We’ve accidently created a modern American culture emphasizing “individuality” while failing to equally promote civic-mindedness, civility and common responsibility to our public spaces and to each other.

Yes, I said our responsibilities.

Formal “Civics” classes are largely faded memories, yet knowledge and acceptance of our civic obligations to our “One Nation” must be re-energized at all levels of public and private education.

“Civic-mindedness” is the key, and from kindergarten through 12th grade graduation we must inculcate the responsibilities we have to each other and to society at large for living in a free, democratic America.

From common courtesy, to picking up litter, to individual self-sufficiency so as to lessen the public burden, to a strong knowledge of a functioning democratic government, to public service — all this needs to be banged into the heads of rising generations of Americans.

Indeed, President Obama was right when he said we aren’t black America and white America or red America or blue America. We must increasingly be One America, and we must understand that each of us owes certain responsibilities of civic-mindedness and proper civility to one another.

This enlightenment of civic-mindedness goes for the white Iowa farm kid as much as the struggling inner-city minority, to the privileged Hollywood director’s kid.

We owe it to America to live, act, and respect properly for one another’s best benefit.

Want a more united, peaceful, productive, respectful America? There’s at least two folks of differing political parties in this town that think it’s time to teach common public responsibilities at all educational levels.

And, while we’re at it, we might also think real hard about mandatory post educational conscription into service settings or military.

Learning of our common responsibilities together and serving together will bring us back in a new civil commitment together.

Gary Horton is a Santa Clarita resident. “Full Speed to Port!” appears Wednesdays in The Signal.

 

Comments

therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:05 a.m.

In Gary's last two columns he writes:

"""I have a good friend who takes marching orders through the tin foil hat atop his head perpetually tuned to Fox and Friends and all else owned and distributed by Rupert Murdoch."""

"""And my friend just happens to be part of the staunch 30 percent of under-70-year-old white guy Republicans who also happen to feel that way."""

"""Kathy hangs with business leaders who are overwhelmingly Republican, and there’s a good chance that in visiting me she was expecting to meet up with a wild-eyed crazed socialist, who like Obama, doesn’t have a real birth certificate and takes marching orders from Radio Moscow and Fidel Castro."""

The way this writer treats his friends with such prejudice and then gossips about them in his columns, I hope I never become a friend of Gary Horton.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:15 a.m.

"""President Obama was right when he said we aren’t black America and white America or red America or blue America."""


And yet, no politician has ever divided Americans more deeply along these lines than Barack Obama. --edited.


OldReliable: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Horton laments that so-called American attitude, "my way or the highway". Well, he can thank Obama for fertilizing and growing that mindset as he bypasses Congress in every way possible. Never mind dealing with the fact that millions of Americans voted for a Republican House of Representatives (which Obama believes is illegitimate) and create bills that could be embraced by Congress. No, no.... instead, he bypasses Congress and says, sue me if you don't like my decisions.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 9, 2014 11:40 a.m.

Gary, you saying we should be "One America" is such bull coming from you. You only mean that as long as everyone else agrees with the way liberal democrats want to do everything.


projalice11: Posted: July 9, 2014 11:42 a.m.

BINGO Mr. Horton good for you ++++


17trillion: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:03 p.m.

What a rank hypocrite you are Gary. You've written the most mean, nasty, and destructive crap in these columns and now you appeal to our "togetherness". Walk the walk or STFU!


hepnerkid: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:07 p.m.

The main reason that there is so much rancor now is that the conservatives have compromised for the last 50 years with liberals and that now all those unintended consequences are coming home to roost. The war on poverty is a good example. It was supposed to end poverty but instead created a permanent sub-class of misery and lost hope. Things don't happen in a vacuum, there is always cause and effect. Conservative America has learned that it is a very slippery slope that the liberals lead us onto and that to continue thus is suicide for the country.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:22 p.m.

bin·go: interjection \ˈbiŋ-(ˌ)gō\

- used to announce that you have won the game in Bingo.

- used by political partisans who have no clue what is being discussed as long as it promotes Democrats and demeans Republicans.

- a sound used by people suffering from severe constipation, usually accompanied with squatting, flapping of one's arms while folded, while making a quacking sound. Victims of this malady also often use the word 'inane' to help promote bowel movements for relief.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:30 p.m.

Another good point, hepnerkid. Democrats point to recent elections as a sign that the culture has changed permanently to embrace their liberal policies when in fact, the culture has become more dependent on government entitlements. The Republican message seems to be "eat your vegetables, it's good for you" while the Democrats are offering "unlimited cotton candy and ice cream for everyone!"

How far we've drifted from the words of a Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Today, Democrats would consider Kennedy an evil extremist.


17trillion: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:58 p.m.

Laughing.....and we all know at what.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 9, 2014 1:17 p.m.

trs- LOL

Gary "doesn’t have a real birth certificate and takes marching orders from Radio Moscow and Fidel Castro." I knew it.


hepnerkid: Posted: July 9, 2014 1:30 p.m.

Gary is like most liberals, they mistake feel good notions for actions that are effective. If it doesn't work out they can shrug their shoulders and make excuses why it didn't work. If people suffer from those actions, well, they are sorry but the rest of us are stuck with the outcome. Liberal seem to have a blind spot when comes to understanding how humans will act.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 1:38 p.m.

"""If it doesn't work out they can shrug their shoulders and make excuses why it didn't work."""

Or usually blame conservatives.


Lotus8: Posted: July 9, 2014 2:12 p.m.

I always laugh when people try to hold out small, culturally homogenous societies like Finland as examples of what America should be like. People in Finland do what is in the common interest because they trust their countrymen and believe that their countrymen have similar values and intentions to their own.

In America, we now celebrate differences. Everyone is a "Dash-American" and unless you have some heritage that you identify with from outside of America you are thought of as having no cultural identity (being just an American doesn't count). This is why we continue to distrust each other more and more and why we can't agree on anything anymore. We have become a nation in name only, kind of like a marriage being viewed solely as a financial or legal arrangement rather than a loving commitment to one's spouse. America is becoming simply a holding pen for blocks of people from around the world to come together and push their agendas to claim some piece of it for themselves. The loving marriage has been reduced simply to a marriage of convenience between America and many of her citizens.


Nitesho: Posted: July 9, 2014 2:26 p.m.

multiculturalism doesn't work

period.


tech: Posted: July 9, 2014 4:18 p.m.

Concur, Lotus8 and Nitsho. And it's beyond that for some as they believe America is what's wrong with the world and actively seek ways to undermine our freedom, weakening us.

I'm surprised someone as well traveled as Mr. Horton doesn't appear to understand cultural differences exist in nation states. While I share, understand and appreciate the sentiment of civic minded respect/tolerance for our fellow citizens, one must also acknowledge that among our population are those that don't reflect the values of our national heritage. Additionally, there are feral predators among us that seek to destroy life, liberty and property. Granted, the risk is low in most area of the country, but it does exist.

Finland was woefully unprepared for a mass murderer like Anders Behring Breivik.


tech: Posted: July 9, 2014 4:19 p.m.

Well stated, hepnerkid.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 9, 2014 4:30 p.m.

trs, LOL, thank you for giving me such a good laugh. Nicely said.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:07 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: The way this writer treats his friends with such prejudice and then gossips about them in his columns, I hope I never become a friend of Gary Horton.

Indy: I don’t think you have much to worry about . . .


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:10 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """President Obama was right when he said we aren’t black America and white America or red America or blue America."""


And yet, no politician has ever divided Americans more deeply along these lines than Barack Obama. --edited.

Indy: I think Obama being black didn’t do much for a lot of older white Americans.

We saw this almost immediately after his election with the ‘birther movement’ that survives to this day.

The partisan divide as we see here at this forum does support your thesis in that rarely if ever do you or another conservative here have anything good to say about Obama.

But please feel free to ‘set me straight’!


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:21 p.m.

OldReliable wrote: Never mind dealing with the fact that millions of Americans voted for a Republican House of Representatives (which Obama believes is illegitimate) and create bills that could be embraced by Congress. No, no.... instead, he bypasses Congress and says, sue me if you don't like my decisions.

Indy: Interestingly, democrats in the House got more than 1 million votes than republicans in the aggregate but do to gerrymandering and voter suppression in many republican districts, they have held on to a slim majority in the House.

And sadly, we’ve seen that the House Speaker now ‘governs’ by simply refusing to have votes taken on anything that's different from strict hard core conservatism.

I’m just curious how the public will see all of this in November . . .


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:25 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Gary, you saying we should be "One America" is such bull coming from you. You only mean that as long as everyone else agrees with the way liberal democrats want to do everything.

Indy: I don’t think its bull at all . . . but since Gingrich back in 1994 said ‘compromise if failure’, what did you really expect?

Why do suppose Senate republicans have filibustered more bills that in the history of the US during the Obama administration?

Why do Senate republicans hold up votes for ‘super majorities’ even when some republicans vote with the democrats?

Why does Speaker of the House Boehner simply refuse to even take votes on bills?

Sadly, the media helps in this polarization in that they like the ‘conflict’ . . . they like having clowns from both parties make polarizing statements and repeat that over and over.

I think there’s a lot more Americans have in agreement with each other but understandably, at boards like this, you’ll never see that . . . ever.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:28 p.m.

Hepnerkid wrote: The main reason that there is so much rancor now is that the conservatives have compromised for the last 50 years with liberals and that now all those unintended consequences are coming home to roost. The war on poverty is a good example. It was supposed to end poverty but instead created a permanent sub-class of misery and lost hope. Things don't happen in a vacuum, there is always cause and effect. Conservative America has learned that it is a very slippery slope that the liberals lead us onto and that to continue thus is suicide for the country.

Indy: I think the better reason is the GOP is now dominated by older white people, many of them religious conservatives that place their ‘beliefs and values’ above anything rational in economics.

We see wealth concentration from GOP tax cuts to the wealthy and you just ignore why they perpetuates poverty.

In any event, we’ll see how this approach works and how the majority of the public sees this type of partisan rancor.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:29 p.m.

Indy: """I think Obama being black didn’t do much for a lot of older white Americans."""

Ahhh....the ever-present race card. And why not offend all the older folks while you're indulging in your prejudice.

Notice how the only ones keeping the 'birther movement' afloat are the far-left Democrats who try to deflect attention away from real scandals which are overwhelming their leader?

And Indy, no one can set you straight. After five years of evidence, links, and actual videos of your leader's deception and ineptitude, you still have your face shoved up Obama's ass so far that nothing will ever change your closed mind.

And you're right, I don't think Gary Horton and I will be friends any time soon. I prefer associating with people of honesty and integrity.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:36 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Another good point, hepnerkid. Democrats point to recent elections as a sign that the culture has changed permanently to embrace their liberal policies when in fact, the culture has become more dependent on government entitlements.

Indy: One of the drawbacks from wealth creation is putting more Americans in poverty and become eligible for safety nets like food stamps.

We saw this after the market crash during Bush W that threw more than 5 million Americans out of work.

We also see that GOP led globalizations efforts off shore American jobs is also concentrating wealth in the US.

Why do suppose the top 1% now take 20%+ of all income in the US, up from 8% when Reagan took office?

Sadly, the GOP runs on conservative ‘beliefs and values’ that don’t map to modern economics.

When we’ve seen many ‘hard working’ Americans lose their jobs and find themselves in persistent unemployment, we get ‘biblical recitals’ in the House to even allow a vote on same.

And minimum wage? Republicans in the House can’t even vote on that . . . afraid to go on record.

Therightstuff wrote: The Republican message seems to be "eat your vegetables, it's good for you" while the Democrats are offering "unlimited cotton candy and ice cream for everyone!"

Indy: Why do you suppose republican voter registration in CA has dropped to an all-time low?


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:38 p.m.

Indy: """many of them religious conservatives that place their ‘beliefs and values’ above anything rational in economics."""

Let's apply that to today's debate over the immigration problem:

Conservative solution - $10,000,000 to send the kids back to their parents.

Obama's solution - $3,700,000,000 to take care of them.

Which idea do you think is the most economically rational solution?


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:43 p.m.

Indy: Why do you suppose republican voter registration in CA has dropped to an all-time low?

Don't know but we sure the see the devastating results of Democratic control.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:32 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """many of them religious conservatives that place their ‘beliefs and values’ above anything rational in economics."""

Let's apply that to today's debate over the immigration problem:

Conservative solution - $10,000,000 to send the kids back to their parents.

Obama's solution - $3,700,000,000 to take care of them.

Which idea do you think is the most economically rational solution?

Indy: This is not an economic issue . . . but we need to consider that it was, hold on . . . wait for it . . . George W Bush that signed the law into effect that creates the reality of the immigrant kids being linked up to their parents here in the US.

Many Americans don’t want to see kids send back to nations where the hostilities are taking place.

In any event, here’s the actual use of the funds:

http://news.yahoo.com/border-crisis-101-obama-3-7-billion-proposal-211119426.html;_ylt=A0SO8wqX671TagMA2Q9XNyoA

Border crisis 101: What’s in Obama’s $3.7 billion proposal?
The $3.7 billion emergency proposal includes enhanced border security and care facilities for the children, as well as additional immigration judges.

The $3.7 billion request for new FY 2014 funds from Congress covers three broad components:

Deterrence and enforcement. The request includes $1.6 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice to support an “aggressive deterrence and enforcement strategy.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, would get $1.1 billion. Most of it would pay for detention and removal of undocumented adults traveling with children, expansion of alternatives to detention programs, and “additional prosecution capacity” for adults with children who cross into the US illegally.

An additional $433 million would go to Customs and Border Protection, including money to pay overtime and temporary duty costs of border patrol agents and facilities for children in the border patrol’s custody.

The Department of Justice would get $64 million, mostly to fund the hiring of 40 additional immigration judge teams and the expansion of courtroom capacity.

Foreign cooperation. The State Department would get $300 million. Most of it would support efforts to repatriate migrants to Central America and to help those countries better control their borders. Another goal is to help those countries address the root causes driving the out-migration.

Beyond the initial assistance, the White House said, continued funding for this purpose would be contingent on “sustained progress and cooperation by the Central American countries.”

Other money would support State Department media campaigns in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras targeting “potential migrants and their families.”

Capacity. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would get $1.8 billion to care for unaccompanied children.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:37 p.m.

And just a couple of quick notes about what Therightstuff criticized but interestinly, doesn’t map to what the GOP has been criticizing Obama:

“Deterrence and enforcement. The request includes $1.6 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice to support an “aggressive deterrence and enforcement strategy.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, would get $1.1 billion. Most of it would pay for detention and removal of undocumented adults traveling with children, expansion of alternatives to detention programs, and “additional prosecution capacity” for adults with children who cross into the US illegally.”

Indy: Gee, more dollars for “aggressive deterrence and enforcement strategy’. GOP has been ‘demanding’ same yet this poster simply ‘ignores’ what Obama is proposing.

“An additional $433 million would go to Customs and Border Protection, including money to pay overtime and temporary duty costs of border patrol agents and facilities for children in the border patrol’s custody.”

Indy: More border security? Ignored by the poster . . .

“Foreign cooperation. The State Department would get $300 million. Most of it would support efforts to repatriate migrants to Central America and to help those countries better control their borders. Another goal is to help those countries address the root causes driving the out-migration.”

Indy: “repatriate migrants to Central”? Gee, the GOP has been hammering on that as well.

In any event, as you can see, the poster just goes off half cocked . . . and just ‘assumes’ that Fox was telling him ‘everything’! As we can see, they weren’t.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:40 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: Why do you suppose republican voter registration in CA has dropped to an all-time low?

Don't know but we sure the see the devastating results of Democratic control.

Indy: Gee, the residents have rejected conservative ideology positions by getting out of the repuclian party . . . and what does the poster suggest . . . hold on . . . wait for it: “devastating results of Democratic control”.

If that were true, the voters wouldn’t be running from the republican party like it was the plague . . .

It’s time to thrown in the towel on conservative ideology . . . many Californians have already taken the first step in voter registration.

My only suggest for this poster is move to Texas where he can be ‘governed’ by a ‘like mind’ ‘religious conservative’ . . . my only thought is what is this poster waiting for?


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:00 p.m.

Indy: """blah, blah...talking points...blah, blah...Fox News...blah, blah...religious conservatives...blah, blah..."""

Wake me up when you've got something new.


chico: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:35 p.m.

Conservatives can agree with Liberals on the issues, but then they'd both be wrong.


ricketzz: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:35 a.m.

Nitesho: "multiculturalism doesn't work period."

You are in the wrong part of the world to be saying that sort of nonsense. The military can make it work, why can't you? Bigoted? Xenophobic? Immersion therapy would probably help. What is your personal history with "multiculturalism?

The base has pulled the GOP into national irrelevance. That's who could use a little culture shock. Why should an urban country still be ruled by superstitious farmers, in the 21st century?


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:54 p.m.

trs- unfortunately (I can't believe I'm saying this), Indy has a point. We can't send the kids back immediately because of this stupid law that Bush signed.

For the short term, we need to care for them, change the law, and then send them back.

The real problem is that Obama knew this was coming and did nothing to avert it. Another example of poor planning, lack of foresight, and the general ineptitude of this administration.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:28 p.m.

AlwaysRight, as for Indy's point, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes, Obama knew this was coming for months and now wants to spend $3.7-billion to clean up his mess. According to Governor Perry of Texas, less than 2% of these billions is for border security. If this indeed is true, that's just nuts.

It would take $10-million to send them back to their parents. That's enough.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:02 p.m.

"Conservative solution - $10,000,000 to send the kids back to their parents.

Obama's solution - $3,700,000,000 to take care of them."

And when the facts show this to be an outright lie, respond with

"blah blah blah" "Rick Perry said ______"

LOL!


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:56 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Yes, Obama knew this was coming for months . . .

Indy: Anyone who’s studied international issues with respect to population and resources that drive human migration have known this issue was coming since Paul Ehrlich wrote his book ‘Population Bomb’ back in 1968, some 40+ years ago . . .

Most Americans didn’t want to believe him then and most don’t today.

Having to address the issue of sustainability relative to population and resources sadly has fallen into the partisan political divide and made it ‘invisible’ to the media and public alike.

And when any rational discussion is invoked to understand and address human migration, this is the type of responses typical that many religious conservatives provide: “AlwaysRight, as for Indy's point, even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

If you this this poster has the answer, then by all means follow him and his advice . . . if not, do some homework and educate yourself on sustainability.

Good places to start:

www.worldwatch.org
http://steadystate.org/
www.populationconnection.org


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:05 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: The real problem is that Obama knew this was coming and did nothing to avert it. Another example of poor planning, lack of foresight, and the general ineptitude of this administration.

Indy: It wasn’t only Obama but he too promises Americans ‘unlimited’ growth on this fixed rock in space.

The vast majority of Americans simply believe ‘folklore’ over ‘reality’ and politicians of both parties promote that belief.

So I understand the reluctance to deal rationally with the drivers of human migration . . .

Sending the kids back today is only a ‘short run’ solution that doesn’t even begin to scratch the economic and sustainability issues drive the migration.

Until that becomes ‘common knowledge’, well, we’ve already ‘wasted’ 4 decades . . . how many more before the public and sadly our ‘leaders’ wake up . . .

If you’ve got children, it’s your responsibility as a parent to deal rationally with this . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 10:00 p.m.

Indy: """Most Americans didn’t want to believe him then and most don’t today."""

If you're talking about Barack Obama, then at last we are agreed.


ricketzz: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:52 a.m.

The climate chaos is going to make refugees a permanent part of the landscape in the richer countries, as food runs out in much of world. Fear not; the ones who make it this far will have some financial means, or they would not have made it.

To watch people get all agitated over a handful of sniveling kids; after we made homeless 3,000,000 Christians, 2,000,000 Jews with our OIL war; millions in Jordan fleeing the American backed and climate change inspired war against the secular Assad; to whine about a few scared crapless little kids betrays the thinnest of skins and total absence of resilience. You won't last long in the coming trouble.


emheilbrun: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:02 a.m.

Indy writes: "If you’ve got children, it’s your responsibility as a parent to deal rationally with this . . . "

Indy, what advice would you give parents to help them to deal rationally with this?


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:24 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: The climate chaos is going to make refugees a permanent part of the landscape in the richer countries, as food runs out in much of world. Fear not; the ones who make it this far will have some financial means, or they would not have made it.

Indy: Yep.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:36 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote: Indy writes: "If you’ve got children, it’s your responsibility as a parent to deal rationally with this . . . "

Indy, what advice would you give parents to help them to deal rationally with this?

Indy: First of all, most parents are not interested . . . they cry about public services but are clueless.

And they elect people from either party into office based on ‘party affiliation’, well, it’s pretty much all downhill from there.

I would suggest trying to obtain information beyond political sites . . . and try to get opposing viewpoints to see if there is any consistency or just ‘talking’ points in play.

I would also suggest spending, what, 1 hour a month thinking . . . versus just reciting slogans they hear in the media.

Sadly, our ‘leaders’ should be leading but they are little more than ‘poll takers’ today that poll the informed and develop a ‘popular’ consensus.

Does that sound like a workable solution . . . of course not . . . we can see it's not working.

In fairness to the public there are few places to go where you get simple, rational, fact and context based explanations of any our problems. I’ve yet to find one . . . but there’s got to be somebody . . .

And why is that? There’s no ‘money’ it in.

Most of the sites I recommend are overwhelming to new visitors. Or they’re so poorly laid out that finding useful simple information is exhausting.

The books I recommend are great but are sadly ‘too deep’ for most folks.

So for now, the situation before us is just like it was prior to the ‘information age’. Yet, we have the information technology to change that . . . and if there was more money in that . . . we’d already see it . . . so for now, you’re stuck with ‘focus group tested’ slogans and talking points geared to ‘each side’.

And of course, the patriotic recitals . . . just count the flags in the 'photo ops'!


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:40 p.m.

Ricketzz: The climate chaos is going to make refugees a permanent part of the landscape..."""

Soooooooo...despite Obama ignoring warnings of the tragedy on the border and the Attorney General in hiding to enforce the law....the problem is global warming!

Indy: Yep.

You guys are starting to really scare me.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:24 p.m.

No need for fear, TRS. Just recognition and diagnosis of fanaticism.

For these folks, everything is related to AGW. Even on Mars*.

*I already looked at the "Skeptical Science" entry. LOL! --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 12, 2014 10:21 a.m.

Mars? True Believers are always the last to grasp an inconvenient truth in the bitter pinched brains. We are on the blade part of the hockey stick. Al Gore on a tall forklift. Remember? That's where we are.

Ice extent in Antarctica is increasing because of altered ocean currents, wind. The West side of the continent is calving 'bergs the size of Manhattan. There is a lot of methane being released in Russian, Canadian, Alaskan, European, burning peat bogs,permafrost melting. Methane is made stable in our biosphere by cold and is now being freed. Runaway methane can make this place uninhabitable in a few years. We'll watch in horror as it all falls apart in front of our eyes, mocking our survival.


CaptGene: Posted: July 12, 2014 12:55 p.m.

The hockey stick is a fraud.


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 6:51 p.m.

No longer focusing on a trace gas, ricketzz? Time to focus on the demon du jour, methane? Fracking must be stopped at all costs because it's disrupting the "peak oil" narrative, eh?

Poor Chicken Little! Don't panic. Your world won't collapse if we don't devolve into little autonomous anarchist collectives.

Life is good and on balance getting better steadily for everyone on the planet. Study up!

http://humanprogress.org


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 7:11 p.m.

I don't recall the opportunistic "green"* politician on a forklift theatrically telling us about this:

The Great Heat Wave of 1936; Hottest Summer in U.S. on Record

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/the-great-heat-wave-of-1936-hottest-summer-in-us-on-record

Did you note how NOAA reinstated this record? Must be the increased scrutiny of raw data, eh? The internet is forever. Weather? Not so much.

*greenbacks


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:02 p.m.

It sure looks like Obamacare is driving down the uninsured rate
Updated by Sarah Kliff on July 10, 2014, 4:43 p.m. ET
The uninsured rate keeps on falling, the most recent round of Gallup poll data shows.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/10/5888409/obamacare-cuts-uninsured-rate?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=thursday

Indy: Let’s see, the article notes 13.4% don’t have insurance now . . . after the implementation of the ACA . . . which is below the 15.4% when Obama took office.

So the worry that conservatives here that the ‘net’ drop was not really true . . . was false and based on Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ fear mongering and not reality.

And the news gets even better . . . from the article:

“The downturn in the uninsured rate coincides with the start of the largest expansion of health insurance coverage in more than five decades, which is more commonly known as Obamacare.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that Obamacare has driven down the uninsured rate. Data from Gallup, the Commonwealth Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Urban Institute, RAND Corporation and the Kaiser Family Foundation all have similar findings. Namely, that millions more people have insurance than before Obamacare's insurance expansion.”

Indy: Largest expansion in five decades?

What were the republicans thinking back in 2000 when Bush W took office and they had 6 YEARS of control to do something and DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING . . . (except watch Romney implement the same strategy based on the Heritage Institute plan . . . that the ACA is based on . . . )

Think about that this November . . .

And PS . . . remember the 'job killing' assertion by Fox et al regarding the ACA . . . noting that last month we had 288,000 new jobs created . . . wow . . .


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:10 p.m.

And the hits just keep on coming . . .

Republicans Who Signed Up For Obamacare This Year Are Pretty Happy
The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender
Posted: 07/10/2014 11:00 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/republicans-health-insurance_n_5574079.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Republicans who signed up for Obamacare this year are liking their new insurance coverage, according to a new survey.

A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then.

But the survey wasn't all good news. HuffPost's Jeffrey Young reports that more than one-third of the lowest-income residents in states that didn't take up the Obamacare Medicaid expansion at the beginning of this year remain uninsured. That rate is virtually unchanged from last year, even as millions gained coverage elsewhere.

For more on the survey, visit the Commonwealth Fund (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/acaTrackingSurvey/index.html ) .

Indy: “74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought . . . “ . . . Say what?

How come Fox doesn't report that . . .

Sadly, the republican outcry must have scared many poor people who although qualified didn’t sign up for the Medicaid expansion . . . . plus another 5+ million poor people in republican controlled states that refused the Medicaid expansion.

Why type of people refuse to insure the poor or scare them?


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:22 p.m.

The Reality Of Who Actually Works For Minimum Wage Will Shock You
JULY 8, 2014 BY AARON WYSOCKI
https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/07/08/reality-actually-works-minimum-wage-will-shock/

Indy: And let’s not forget the distortions about who works at the minimum wage put out by Fox . . . here’s the actual break down from the video linked from Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Adult women: 48.5%
Adult men: 27.5%
Teen boys: 10%
Teen girls: 14%

So less that ¼ of the people working for minimum wage are the ‘teen job starters’ that is grandstanded by Fox . . . but the rest of the workers are adults . . . that completely blows apart the RNC talking point about the minimum wage just for ‘new hires’.

Anyway, we know that the large multinational corporations, many of whom ‘own’ many congressmen, are off shoring jobs to nation’s that pay $1/hr . . . then the same corporations leverage these wage differentials for higher profits . . . that they ‘keep off shore’ to not pay federal income taxes. Say what?

Then you hear the same corporations through their paid ‘town criers’ cry about bringing the profit dollars back to the US . . . at lower tax rates than you pay as a working American.

What type of party would support such distortions of the minimum wage even refusing at the least to keep is tied into ‘inflation’, a very very popular statistic that conservatives use when it suits their own ideology (think cutting back safety net programs like SNAP independent of the actual demands for help based on the economic reality in play).

Again, when you walk into the booth this November, decide what party is ‘looking out for you’ and which one is looking out for the ‘big money’ . . .


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:29 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: The hockey stick is a fraud.

Indy: Understandably, this poster recites the Op-ed from many of his conservative business magazines and sites but let’s see what the science says:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
“The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.”

Indy: I suggest following the link and reading the complete article with graphs.

I also highly recommend getting your knowledge about climate change from climatologist and a great read on the topic is: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines [Kindle Edition] Michael E. Mann


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:30 p.m.

And who is Michael Mann:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
“Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

As lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, Mann introduced innovative statistical techniques to find regional variations in a hemispherical climate reconstruction covering the past 600 years. In 1999 the same team used these techniques to produce a reconstruction over the past 1,000 years (MBH99) which was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.

He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, published in early 2012. In 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". He is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.”


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:52 p.m.

Who makes minimum wage?

Perhaps surprisingly, not very many people earn minimum wage, and they make up a smaller share of the workforce than they used to. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year 1.566 million hourly workers earned the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour; nearly two million more earned less than that because they fell under one of several exemptions (tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others), for a total of 3.55 million hourly workers at or below the federal minimum.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/

A missing factor is tracking workers over time. The BLS stats are a snapshot of a dynamic workforce. Entry level workers earn the minimum wage until they learn skills that allow them to increase their value to the business and earn a corresponding raise in compensation.

For example:

At age 16 on my first "real" job, I earned minimum wage for 2 weeks before my hourly rate was nearly doubled.

What kind of Party Apparatchik would "hide the decline"?


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:54 p.m.

CG, I'll allow you the pleasure of addressing "Skeptical Science". :-D


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 9:18 p.m.

"Think about that this November . . .

And PS . . . remember the 'job killing' assertion by Fox et al regarding the ACA . . . noting that last month we had 288,000 new jobs created . . . wow . . . " - Indy

Oh, we are, Indy. Unsurprisingly, when you offer something for "free" or subsidized, there's demand. Especially from those in the rapidly increasing part time job force.

Regarding jobs:

If someone wants a full-time job, but can't get one, they often will settle for a part-time job. These are the "involuntary part-time workers," and the recent rise in their numbers has some experts worried.

The government reported that there were 288,000 new jobs added in June. That was the silver lining. Paul Davidson at USA Today wrote about the dark cloud: "The number of hours employees are working? That's a different story. Among the few worrisome signs in (the) generally encouraging employment report was a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. The total jumped by 275,000 to 7.5 million, the Labor Department said."

In May, the number of involuntary part-timers dropped 196,000, so this jump is a bit of a surprise and the highest this year, Davidson wrote.

Economist Bernard Baumohl told Davidson that the better the economy gets, employees should be putting in more time on the job. "Instead, (Baumohl) notes, the economy has been running in place this year."

"What we're seeing is a growing trend of low-quality part-time jobs," Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Work Week Initiative, told Ylan. "It's creating this massive unproductive workforce that is unable to productively engage in their lives or in the economy."

Arnold Ahlert, writing for FrontPageMag.com puts the number of part-time jobs in context: "Overall, America now has 118 million full-time jobs compared to 28 million part-time jobs, according to the BLS. Thus, 23.7 percent, or nearly one-out-of-every four Americans, is working part-time."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606544/More-part-time-jobs-not-a-good-sign-some-economists-say.html

As a consumer of VOX and Puffington Host content, please continue to rave about Fox. Do you comment at moveon.org and dailykos.com as well? If so, please advise what your user IDs are so I can follow your commentary for consistency. :-D

11/4/14®


CaptGene: Posted: July 12, 2014 11:30 p.m.

Tech, I appreciate the opportunity, but please, you go ahead, you will do a much better job than I will. However, allow me to address this Michael Mann fraud.

This is Michael Mann's education, from his PSU website:

Undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math
M.S. degree in Physics
Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics

Hmmm, nothing in there about Meteorology or Climatology at all.

If I tried to pawn this guy off to the alarmists as as "real" climate scientist, he would be dismissed out of hand.

http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

As for the hokey stick:

"McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/ --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 12:51 p.m.

What's 11/4/14? Indy says the election is in December. You sure you want to go against him? He's so well educated and so well accomplished.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 2:13 p.m.

"I also highly recommend getting your knowledge about climate change from climatologist (sic)…" - Indy

Taking your recommendation and appeal to authority into account, out of the 30 Skeptical Science "team" members, how many are "climatologists"?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 2:14 p.m.

December… right! What was I thinking, TRS?


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 6:43 p.m.

Tech wrote: Who makes minimum wage?

Indy: Who rejects adjusting the minimum wage for inflation?

Tech wrote: Perhaps surprisingly, not very many people earn minimum wage, and they make up a smaller share of the workforce than they used to. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year 1.566 million hourly workers earned the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour; nearly two million more earned less than that because they fell under one of several exemptions (tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others), for a total of 3.55 million hourly workers at or below the federal minimum.

Indy: So the folks at this wage since they are in the minority they should be ignored?

Tech wrote: For example:

At age 16 on my first "real" job, I earned minimum wage for 2 weeks before my hourly rate was nearly doubled.

Indy: I like that religious conservatives like to ‘go back in time’ and ignore the current reality . . . in any event, all employers educate their current workforce.

Asking people to work full time as we saw with 75% of the folks making minimum wage were adults, why would we want to see them still in poverty?

And look at the Walmart situation that even ‘advised’ their employees how to get ‘safety net’ benefits like ‘food stamps?

Who would support that? Republicans? Looks like that . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 6:49 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Think about that this November . . .

And PS . . . remember the 'job killing' assertion by Fox et al regarding the ACA . . . noting that last month we had 288,000 new jobs created . . . wow . . . " - Indy

Oh, we are, Indy. Unsurprisingly, when you offer something for "free" or subsidized, there's demand. Especially from those in the rapidly increasing part time job force.

Indy: The key point here is that Fox ‘promoted’ then ‘recited’ innuendo and speculation that was simply false and misleading . . .

Tech wrote: Regarding jobs:

If someone wants a full-time job, but can't get one, they often will settle for a part-time job. These are the "involuntary part-time workers," and the recent rise in their numbers has some experts worried.

The government reported that there were 288,000 new jobs added in June. That was the silver lining. Paul Davidson at USA Today wrote about the dark cloud: "The number of hours employees are working? That's a different story. Among the few worrisome signs in (the) generally encouraging employment report was a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. The total jumped by 275,000 to 7.5 million, the Labor Department said."

Indy: What happened to the Fox predictions about the ACA being a ‘job killer’?

Tech wrote: "What we're seeing is a growing trend of low-quality part-time jobs," Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Work Week Initiative, told Ylan. "It's creating this massive unproductive workforce that is unable to productively engage in their lives or in the economy."

Indy: I’m not sure what planet you’re living on but we know that multinational corporations are off shoring jobs which creates the problem with the over supply of labor here that drives down wages.

Why do think republicans WON’T EVEN TAKE A VOTE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE IN THE HOUSE?

The answer is they DON’T WANT TO GO ON RECORD!!!

This type of political cowardness needs to be put on display for: 11/4/14®

Tech wrote: As a consumer of VOX . . . content, please continue to rave about Fox. Do you comment at moveon.org and dailykos.com as well? If so, please advise what your user IDs are so I can follow your commentary for consistency. :-D

Indy: What interesting is these groups actually report the ‘news’ . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 6:55 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not.

Indy: Again, just look at the data . . .

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

And who is Michael Mann:

• He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002.
• In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union.
• In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
• In 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". He is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.”
• He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001

And Comedy Gold wants me to ignore this scientist when he recites his conservative Op-ed business writers for business magazines? LOL . . .

Well, as always . . . it’s comedy gold . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 6:59 p.m.

Let's see here . . . where did the statistics come from:

"For more on the survey, visit the Commonwealth Fund (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/acaTrackingSurvey/index.html ) .

Indy: “74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought . . . “ . . . Say what?

How come Fox doesn't report that . . .

Sadly, the republican outcry must have scared many poor people who although qualified didn’t sign up for the Medicaid expansion . . . . plus another 5+ million poor people in republican controlled states that refused the Medicaid expansion.

Why type of people refuse to insure the poor or scare them?"

Why won't these libertarian conservatives 'here' see that the majority of republicans using the ACA like it!!!

Where's all the Fox 'innuendo and speculation' nonsense that was recited here the last several years?

And why does all that reciting of nonsense not even remotely agree with the reality?

You as a voter should be asking that question this November . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:03 p.m.

And the data to support this from Gallop:

“It sure looks like Obamacare is driving down the uninsured rate
Updated by Sarah Kliff on July 10, 2014, 4:43 p.m. ET
The uninsured rate keeps on falling, the most recent round of Gallup poll data shows.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/10/5888409/obamacare-cuts-uninsured-rate?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=thursday

Indy: Let’s see, the article notes 13.4% don’t have insurance now . . . after the implementation of the ACA . . . which is below the 15.4% when Obama took office.”

Indy: Why won’t conservatives acknowledge the success of the ACA?

Why are conservatives especially in the republican party run states denying their poor access to the ACA Medicaid expansion?

Again, carry those questions into the booth this November . . . ask yourself: why are republicans so uncaring of helping those in need?

Notice how they ‘IGNORE’ these questions . . . and even ignore where the data comes from!


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:48 p.m.

Tech wrote: Who makes minimum wage?

Indy: Who rejects adjusting the minimum wage for inflation?

Answer: People who understand that artificially elevated wage rates constitute an inflationary factor that would equivalently erode the purchasing power of the very people Big Labor and "progressives" profess they wish to help. It sets up an inflationary spiral that never resolves. We're about to see some real time examples in Seattle/SeaTac.

Markets are the most efficient at setting pricing. Central planning doesn't work. See: Venezuela.

To address the remainder of your screeds, the ideas you're flacking have all been tried and been proven failures by history, Indy. The record of powerful central governments attempting to control extremely complex systems is clear.

Climate Orthodoxy is also a failure. Societies in advanced economies will make rational adaptation decisions based on actual observed data rather than unproven climate simulation models.

Keep flailing, Indy. However, I advise you to get ready for the consequences of hubris.


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 8:33 p.m.

Tech, Indy Nile continues to promote skepticalscience.com when it has been shown that there is not a single climate scientist in their entire organization (I believe that even stevehw has seen the light on that one). If Michael Mann went there to visit, there still wouldn't be any climate scientists there. As we have seen over and over, all Indy Nile can do is repeat the talking points.

The guy is a waste of time, I do enjoy watching his Baghdad Bob impression though...spot on!


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 8:46 p.m.

Agreed, CG.

With few exceptions, I rebut Indy and move on. Anything beyond that is talking to a bot on a repeat loop*. See above.

*Or "Gallop" (sic) LOL!


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:18 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: Who makes minimum wage?

Indy: Who rejects adjusting the minimum wage for inflation?

Answer: People who understand that artificially elevated wage rates constitute an inflationary factor that would equivalently erode the purchasing power of the very people Big Labor and "progressives" profess they wish to help. It sets up an inflationary spiral that never resolves. We're about to see some real time examples in Seattle/SeaTac.

Indy: Dude . . . do you read your own posts?

Didn’t you grandstand that the number of workers at this wage is very small?

And that’s going to create some inflationary spiral? Please . . .

When the minimum wage was raised by compromise in both parties for the last 40 years . . . what changed?

Oh . . . now we’ve got libertarian market fundamentalist that can’t understand the context of what’s going on economically in the US . . .

Tech wrote: Markets are the most efficient at setting pricing. Central planning doesn't work. See: Venezuela.

Indy: Keeping the minimum wage adjusted for inflation is ‘central planning’? Unbelievable . . .

Tech wrote: To address the remainder of your screeds, the ideas you're flacking have all been tried and been proven failures by history, Indy. The record of powerful central governments attempting to control extremely complex systems is clear.

Indy: Now were back center to central libertarian ideology about the ‘central government’ as if ‘we the people’ shouldn’t use our common knowledge for our common benefit . . .

Tech wrote: Climate Orthodoxy is also a failure. Societies in advanced economies will make rational adaptation decisions based on actual observed data rather than unproven climate simulation models.

Indy: Again, as an engineer and someone whose working in the energy industry, I can help you understand the models but the real reality is the ‘data’ in the historical records.

And the models keep getting better and show the same thing! Why ignore them?

Tech wrote: Keep flailing, Indy. However, I advise you to get ready for the consequences of hubris.

Indy: Dude . . . I’m here for ya!


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:20 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Tech, Indy Nile continues to promote skepticalscience.com when it has been shown that there is not a single climate scientist in their entire organization (I believe that even stevehw has seen the light on that one). If Michael Mann went there to visit, there still wouldn't be any climate scientists there. As we have seen over and over, all Indy Nile can do is repeat the talking points.

Indy: Notice how this poster ‘mimics’ what I write but does so poorly and embarrasses himself.

He’s going to be a world renoun climate scientist up against his conservative Op-ed business writers . . . I wish I was making it up.

In any event, go to this site and read for yourself: www.skepticalscience.com


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:23 p.m.

Tech wrote: With few exceptions, I rebut Indy and move on. Anything beyond that is talking to a bot on a repeat loop*. See above.

Indy: Brought back by ‘popular conservative posting’, the poster wins again the ‘Pay Yourself On the Back Award’!!!

Let’s hear it for him!

He needs the encouragement . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:25 p.m.

Indy: """ask yourself: why are republicans so uncaring of helping those in need?"""

I've noticed that most far-left ideologues presume that everyone is as stupid and gullible as them.

Here's an honest question to ask: If the ACA is so successful and helping so many people, why did Barack Obama push out so many elements of it's implementation? No debate or vote in Congress, he just arbitrarily made these changes on his own. Either he doesn't want the sh*t to hit the fan before the 2014 mid-term and 2016 Presidential elections or he must not care about the poor. Which is it?

psst...cue the Fox News talking point...


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:29 p.m.

Indy Nile: "He’s going to be a world renoun[sic] climate scientist up against his conservative Op-ed business writers..."

This is what professed MBA from CSUN Indy Nile considers an intelligent response.

"renoun", I wish I was making it up. What a stooge.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:38 p.m.

May, 2013 brought another attempt by Climate Movement activists to revive their discredited "97% consensus" claim. But this time, the author, John Cook, didn't count scientists, he counted papers, and announced that 97% of relevant climate science papers “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But to reach that conclusion, Mr. Cook had to use an overly broad definition of the “consensus,” discard over ⅔ of the climatology papers he examined, and mischaracterize many of the rest.

http://sealevel.info/97pct/#cook


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:41 p.m.

Guys, what do you expect from an avid MSNBC follower, a rabid disciple of disgraced partisan hack David Brock, and the worst of the Obama loyalists?


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 1:25 a.m.

Tech: People who understand that artificially elevated wage rates constitute an inflationary factor that would equivalently erode the purchasing power of the very people Big Labor and "progressives" profess they wish to help. It sets up an inflationary spiral that never resolves. We're about to see some real time examples in Seattle/SeaTac.

Indy: Dude . . . (sic) do you read your own posts?

Didn’t you grandstand (sic) that the number of workers at this wage is very small?

And that’s going to create some inflationary spiral? Please . . . (sic)

Tech: Here's another example of how your ideology blinds you and causes you to make unforced errors. Your ignorance prevents you from comprehending ripple effects in the economy beyond minimum wage earners.

Why do unions like the SEIU bus in and pay minimum wage increase protesters for carrying signs composed and paid for by the union? Read on.

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage
Labor contracts are often tied to the law—and it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.

Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union member—at least one who still has a job—earns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.

The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.

(cont.)


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 1:26 a.m.

The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."

The labor contracts that we examined used a variety of methods to trigger the increases. The two most popular formulas were setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage or mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage.

Other union contracts stipulate that, following a minimum-wage increase, the union and the employer reopen wage talks. The negotiations could pressure employers and unions to hammer out a new contract, regardless of how long their existing contracts last. Presumably the reopened negotiations could also prompt an employer's demand for union givebacks, but that possibility does not seem to scare the unions.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 1:27 a.m.

Are you a member of a union, Indy?


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:39 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech: People who understand that artificially elevated wage rates constitute an inflationary factor that would equivalently erode the purchasing power of the very people Big Labor and "progressives" profess they wish to help. It sets up an inflationary spiral that never resolves. We're about to see some real time examples in Seattle/SeaTac.

Indy: Dude . . . (sic) do you read your own posts?

Didn’t you grandstand (sic) that the number of workers at this wage is very small?

And that’s going to create some inflationary spiral? Please . . . (sic)

Tech: Here's another example of how your ideology blinds you and causes you to make unforced errors. Your ignorance prevents you from comprehending ripple effects in the economy beyond minimum wage earners.

Indy: Again, you ignore the circumstances that are putting downward pressure on wages.

And I’m not going to dismiss the union issue . . . since it’s also noted that in areas with higher union participation, the wages in those areas are higher.

But this labor issue pales when we see the ‘wealth concentration’ that has the 1% taking about 20% of all income up from just 8% when Reagan took office.

Why is that happening?

Can you grasp the fact that when the few take more the majority get less?

And when I cite the ‘income advantages’ you just ignore them . . . and get right back on the libertarian market fundamentalist horse to ride . . .

In any event, the wealthy benefit from the following that the poor and union members do not:


a. The low capital gains rate that has them paying a rate that is not consistent with their use of tax funded infrastructure including our military, courts, and transportation infrastructure.

b. They also benefit since their ‘discretionary’ incomes are so much higher they can invest more (think stockholders – owners of capital) while most Americans exist ‘check to check’.

c. They can take advantage of ‘large’ business deals especially in off shoring where huge income gains result from the large ‘wage differentials’ in nations with low wage rates.

d. Having the ability to influence our tax laws (loopholes) provided high income earners access to our leaders where folks like me get to speak to a ‘college intern’ on the phone when I call them.

e. Legal superiority in that those will higher incomes can legally protect their assets versus everyone without such representation (think reading a standard credit card ‘terms and conditions’ that most people don’t read and can’t understand if they did.)


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:40 p.m.

Tech wrote: Are you a member of a union, Indy?

Indy: Are lawyers and attorneys in unions?


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:42 p.m.

C(omdey)aptG(old)ene wrote: Indy Nile: "He’s going to be a world renoun[sic] climate scientist up against his conservative Op-ed business writers..."

This is what professed MBA from CSUN Indy Nile considers an intelligent response.

"renoun", I wish I was making it up. What a stooge.

Indy: When this comedian can’t understand the science he tries to hide that incompetence with a ‘auto correct’!

What else can I say?

But hey . . . it's comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:55 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """ask yourself: why are republicans so uncaring of helping those in need?"""

I've noticed that most far-left ideologues presume that everyone is as stupid and gullible as them.

Indy: No, I let the debate determine who’s clueless . . .

Therightstuff wrote: Here's an honest question to ask: If the ACA is so successful and helping so many people, why did Barack Obama push out so many elements of it's implementation? No debate or vote in Congress, he just arbitrarily made these changes on his own. Either he doesn't want the sh*t to hit the fan before the 2014 mid-term and 2016 Presidential elections or he must not care about the poor. Which is it? psst...cue the Fox News talking point...

Indy: Why did Bush W do the same thing with the Medicare Part D rollout?

Where was the republican outcry for that? Feel free to cite any links . . .

The reality is that implementation of large programs takes time . . . that even occurred with Medicare . . . but most Americans like that program.

And small businesses even requested a delay:

Business leaders welcome ACA delay of employer penalties
July 5, 2013 4:00 am by Nixon, Alex

“Business leaders expressed relief on Wednesday that the Obama administration won't penalize companies with 50 or more employees for not offering health insurance next year.
"The reaction is: 'At least we can breathe right now,' " said James McTiernan, a health care consultant with Triad Gallagher, a Downtown benefits advising firm.”

Read more: http://medcitynews.com/2013/07/business-leaders-welcome-aca-delay-of-employer-penalties/#ixzz37TxHw25x


In any event, we now see that 75% of republicans like the plans they got with the ACA. How can that be?

This whole issue with Boehner suing the President is ludicrous . . . but it plays well to the tea party base and so rather than actually ‘taking votes’ on things in the House, Boehner occupies his time with yet another attempt to degrade or repeal the ACA.

I can only tell you that that will happen when you hell freezes over . . . but we’ll get an idea this November . . .


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Here’s the follow up on the delay of Medicare Part D:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/26/3419068/flashback-the-bush-administration-extended-the-enrollment-period-for-medicare-part-d/
Channeling Bush, Obama Extends Deadline For Health Insurance Enrollment
BY IGOR VOLSKY MARCH 26, 2014

The Obama administration will announce on Wednesday that individuals who had experienced difficulty signing up for the Affordable Care Act will still be able to enroll in insurance after the March 31st deadline and obtain coverage until mid-April. The move, the latest in a series of administration efforts to simply the enrollment process following a rocky rollout, echoes the Bush administration’s 2006 decision to help seniors enlist in Medicare Part D after the official enrollment deadline.

In May of 2006, just days before the end of open enrollment, President Bush took administrative action towaive “penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late” and allowed “the same impoverished beneficiaries to sign up for Medicare drug coverage until Dec. 31.”

“In other words, you can apply after May 15th without penalty,” Bush told seniors during an event in Florida. “And that’s important for low-income seniors to understand.”

Like Obamacare, the launch of President George W. Bush’s prescription benefit plan was hampered by technical glitches, setbacks, and mass confusion. As the May 15 deadline for enrollment loomed, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advocacy organizations, and a surprising number of newspaper editorials, urged the administration to extend the enrollment period and protect seniors from the penalties associated with late enrollment.


CaptGene: Posted: July 14, 2014 6:11 p.m.

Indy Nile: "When this comedian can’t understand the science he tries to hide that incompetence with a ‘auto correct’!"

When the stooge Indy Nile can't be bothered to check his/her spelling, you can be assured that he/she hasn't bothered to check his/her facts. Take for example his/her slavish devotion to skepticalscience.com. The fourth stooge, Indy Nile continues to tout them as "real climate scientists". He/she hasn't bothered to do the minimum investigation into who they are, or what their qualifications are.

Basically, anyone is qualified to be on the skepticalscience team, regardless of their educational background. They are anything but "real climate scientists". Indy Nile continues to hold them up as experts facts be damned.

The truly funny part is that he/she can't figure out why his opinion is not respected. What a stooge.

For anyone that has some intellectual curiosity:

http://skepticalscience.com/team.php

(H/T to tech for the heads up!)


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 7:07 p.m.

Tech wrote: Are you a member of a union, Indy?

Indy: Are lawyers and attorneys in unions?

Non sequitur. Are you a member of a union, Indy?


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 7:21 p.m.

Didn’t you grandstand (sic) that the number of workers at this wage is very small?

And that’s going to create some inflationary spiral? Please . . . (sic)

"And I’m not going to dismiss the union issue . . . (sic)" - Indy

Then you confirm your criticism was erroneous, i.e. asserting that raising the minimum wage would have little effect beyond the small number earning that wage, right?

You should take care when castigating others for economic ignorance when you exhibit it yourself.


therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 8:04 p.m.

Indy: """Why did Bush W do the same thing with the Medicare Part D rollout? Where was the republican outcry for that? Feel free to cite any links . . .The reality is that implementation of large programs takes time . . ."""

sigh...why must you guys on the left ALWAYS default to what Bush did when asked why Obama is doing something NOW?

Yes, implementation of large programs takes time but these implementations were ALREADY IN THE ACA LAW. Why did Obama take them out entirely on his own and postpone health care for more people? Does he not care about poor people getting healthcare as soon as possible? What else could have been Obama's motivation for postponing full implementation when it was ALREADY IN THE LAW?


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:30 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Why did Bush W do the same thing with the Medicare Part D rollout? Where was the republican outcry for that? Feel free to cite any links . . .The reality is that implementation of large programs takes time . . ."""

sigh...why must you guys on the left ALWAYS default to what Bush did when asked why Obama is doing something NOW?

Indy: The same thing . . . just different program . . .

Therightstuff wrote: Yes, implementation of large programs takes time but these implementations were ALREADY IN THE ACA LAW.

Indy: Again same thing as Bush W but the republicans marched with him like good little soliders (they wanted their campaign helps from the RNC . . . ) and kept their mouths shut . . . and the democrats as politically motivated as republicans, didn’t start impeachment hearings . . . although some of the more radicalized ones mentioned it.

Therightstuff wrote: Why did Obama take them out entirely on his own and postpone health care for more people? Does he not care about poor people getting healthcare as soon as possible?

Indy: I’m sure he cared one reason why individuals even working for small employers can sign up for the ACA . . . which some 8+ million did.

But why are republicans blocking the Medicate expansion? Don’t they care about the poor?

Therightstuff wrote: What else could have been Obama's motivation for postponing full implementation when it was ALREADY IN THE LAW?

Indy: You’ll have to ask Boehner and McConnell . . . they’ve been working in concert to degrade or repeal the ACA . . . essentially flushing people like me down the toilet with preexisting conditions.

But I’m not done with that . . . and we need to explore methods to sue people like Buck McKeon that voted for the repeals that essentially were politically motivated and helped no one . . .

Remember Buck, it works both ways . . .


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:40 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Indy Nile: "When this comedian can’t understand the science he tries to hide that incompetence with a ‘auto correct’!"

When the stooge Indy Nile can't be bothered to check his/her spelling, you can be assured that he/she hasn't bothered to check his/her facts. Take for example his/her slavish devotion to skepticalscience.com. The fourth stooge, Indy Nile continues to tout them as "real climate scientists". He/she hasn't bothered to do the minimum investigation into who they are, or what their qualifications are.

Indy: eye undeerrstan yor fassinaetion weth speling . . . but it doesn’t dismiss your lack of any scientific credibility especially when you recite business Op-eds from people unqualified to comment on science . . . but nice try though . . .

CaptGene wrote: Basically, anyone is qualified to be on the skepticalscience team, regardless of their educational background. They are anything but "real climate scientists". Indy Nile continues to hold them up as experts facts be damned.

Indy: I recommend anyone go to: www.skepticalscience.com

Read the science and compare it to the business Op-eds this posters wants to rest our future on . . . decide for yourself.

CaptGene wrote: The truly funny part is that he/she can't figure out why his opinion is not respected. What a stooge.

Indy: I don’t expect mindless conservative ideologues to ever agree with people like me that deal with reality . . . you’re more interested in grammar and spelling errors than reality . . . that’s your burden to bear . . . and let’s again, let the guest readers decide your credibility . . . we know that ‘like mind’ conservative ideologues just follow each other . . . repeat nonsense based on innuendo and speculation . . . without even realizing that it’s ‘focus group tested’ bs . . .

CaptGene wrote: For anyone that has some intellectual curiosity:

http://skepticalscience.com/team.php

(H/T to tech for the heads up!)

Indy: Yes, I agree . . . thanks Tech and please, everyone go to this link and read the resumes . . . see how many write for conservative business magazines . . .

Also, check out the resources and links to the references for their work . . .


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:45 p.m.

Tech wrote: Didn’t you grandstand (sic) that the number of workers at this wage is very small?

And that’s going to create some inflationary spiral? Please . . . (sic)

"And I’m not going to dismiss the union issue . . . (sic)" - Indy

Then you confirm your criticism was erroneous, i.e. asserting that raising the minimum wage would have little effect beyond the small number earning that wage, right?

Indy: Let’s review what I wrote that you ignored:

“But this labor issue pales when we see the ‘wealth concentration’ that has the 1% taking about 20% of all income up from just 8% when Reagan took office.

Why is that happening?”

Notice how the guy is all over labor rates and simply by silence agrees with libertarian market fundamentalism that is concentrating wealth to the top 1%!

Makes you wonder about this guy feels for your job and your kid's jobs . . . and their future . . .

Tech wrote: You should take care when castigating others for economic ignorance when you exhibit it yourself.

Indy: Again, I’m just here to help you understand the basics of economics, business and management . . . topics that you missed in your legal education . . . and one reason it’s so very important that I call out your ignorance . . . which is so obvious when you ignore what your policies are doing . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 11:12 p.m.

Indy: I asked you if the ACA is so successful, why did Barack Obama postpone many of the elements in the law that had already been passed.

Here are the answers I've gotten so far from you:

A. Because Bush postponed parts of the Medicare Part D rollout.

B. Because some 8-million people already signed up for the ACA.

C. You'll have to ask Boehner or McConnell.

Why do you keep avoiding this question? If the ACA is as successful as you insist, why would Barack Obama postpone major parts of it that had already been passed into law?




tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:16 a.m.

Indy: Yes, I agree . . . thanks Tech and please, everyone go to this link and read the resumes . . . see how many write for conservative business magazines . . .

How many of the 30 "team members" at Skeptical Science are the climatologists defined in your original appeal to authority, Indy? Instead you proffer the ideological litmus test of a loyal Party apparatchik, content be damned.

LOL! --edited.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:25 a.m.

Indy: Let’s review what I wrote that you ignored…

Why don't admit your economic error on the ripple effect of minimum wage increase instead of deflecting, Indy?

Everyone makes mistakes. Intellectually honest people acknowledge them, learn and improve their arguments.


CaptGene: Posted: July 15, 2014 1:14 a.m.

It is absolutely incredible how blind Indy Nile can be. Much to steve's credit he has come to realize that the "team" at SS has none of the qualifications that the AGW alarmists demand that the AGW realists have.

Really sad and pathetic.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 1:23 a.m.

The Black Knight never acknowledges defeat, CG. Time to, once again, move on.


CaptGene: Posted: July 15, 2014 1:40 a.m.

Right you are.


ricketzz: Posted: July 15, 2014 10:03 a.m.

Skeptical Science is a news aggregator, like Matt Drudge. They link to the scientific journals (like Drudge sometimes links to real news people). The only requirement needed is a dedication to the factual truth.

Tech continues to speak like Pat Buchanan on bad crystal meth. "Apparatchik"? Really? Does this "off the mark" mischaracterization apply? The Republican base is more dependent on PC behavior and speech than anything I have seen on the left, including 9 years at Pacifica. Dogmatic don't begin to describe it.

It is customary for Congress to pass broad strokes and for the Administrative/Executive to roll it out. Congress wanted Employer Mandate eliminated. Obama compromised and delayed it until 2015.

"It's good to be da King!" -Mel Brooks


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:08 p.m.

You entirely missed the point of the argument, ricketzz. Skeptical Science is an AGW advocacy site and isn't staffed by the climatologists Indy has recommended we defer to. Climate Alarmists continually appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum and insist the science is "settled", so shut up.

Are you now making the argument that information should be judged solely on content rather than source? If so, welcome to rationality.

You are rather blithe about the existential threat the administrative state poses to our Republic.

Philip Hamburger, professor of law at Columbia, has authored a scholarly tome on the subject. It's reviewed here:

When administrative agencies, which are not courts of law, issue binding orders to appear and testify; when they command homes, businesses, and records to be kept open for inspection; when they require businesses to self-report regulatory violations; when they bind subjects without juries or independent judges—there were terms for such actions, too. They were general warrants and writs of assistance. They were self-incrimination and ex officio proceedings. They were Star Chamber and the High Commission.

They were tyranny.

“The history of administrative law,” writes Hamburger, “reaches back many centuries.”

It is thus not a coincidence that administrative law looks remarkably similar to the sort of governance that thrived long ago in medieval and early modern England under the name of “prerogative.” .  .  . Administrative law thus turns out to be not a uniquely modern response to modern circumstances, but the most recent expression of an old and worrisome development.

Hamburger meticulously (and sometimes laboriously) demonstrates how the modern administrative state revives all the attributes of the royal prerogative and absolute power. Even in the details, modern administrative law is shockingly reminiscent of 16th- and 17th-century royal conduct.

Today, for example, administrative agencies claim statutory authority to create rules—that is, to make law—where constitutionally enacted statutes are ambiguous. Agencies “interpret” their own statutes, and courts give those interpretations deference. King James I argued that he had the same powers as his common law judges to interpret law and that they must defer to his interpretation.

(cont.)


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:08 p.m.

What has changed?

The similarity is important in its more general contours. Hamburger explains that administrative power is a power exercised outside the law: It is created outside the established constitutional procedures. It is also a power exercised above the law: It excuses both the executive and subjects from following law, as with the dispensing power (i.e., waivers). And finally, it is a consolidated power: The otherwise-separate legislative, judicial, and executive powers are combined—which, Hamburger writes, is the traditional understanding of absolute power.

It is also unconstitutional. There is no constitutional provision granting the president power to dispense with particular health care regulations for certain companies. The Constitution establishes only three powers: the legislative power to make the law, the judicial power to adjudicate cases in accord with the law, and the executive power to execute the law. “None of these powers includes any authority to excuse persons from law,” Hamburger writes. “The power to exclude from law was the old dispensing power, and it simply does not exist in the Constitution.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/l-tat-c-est-moi_796381.html?nopager=1


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 2:48 p.m.

therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 8:12 p.m.
Indy: I asked you if the ACA is so successful, why did Barack Obama postpone many of the elements in the law that had already been passed.

Here are the answers I've gotten so far from you:

A. Because Bush postponed parts of the Medicare Part D rollout.

B. Because some 8-million people already signed up for the ACA.

C. You'll have to ask Boehner or McConnell.

Why do you keep avoiding this question? If the ACA is as successful as you insist, why would Barack Obama postpone major parts of it that had already been passed into law?

Indy: You forgot this: Only 4% of the business sector is effected by the delay:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-10/the-white-house-delays-obamacares-employer-mandate-yet-again
““While about 96 percent of employers are not subject to the employer responsibility provision, for those employers that are, we will continue to make the compliance process simpler and easier to navigate,” Mark J. Mazur, the U.S. Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for tax policy, said in a statement published by Bloomberg News”

Indy: But thankfully, it’s great that Boehner after taking 50+ votes to repeal or degrade the ACA is now ‘suing’ the President for ‘delaying the small business’ roll out!

Finally . . . Boehner is ‘on board’ with the ACA . . . and that’s a good thing!


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 2:55 p.m.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/14/news/companies/citi-settlement/index.html
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Citigroup agreed to pay $7 billion to settle charges that it packaged bad mortgages during the run-up to the financial crisis.

It includes $4 billion in penalties, $2.5 billion in mortgage modifications and other relief to homeowners, and $500 million going to five states and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The settlement means Citi will be able to avoid a civil suit by the Justice Department and mirrors similar agreements with JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and other lenders in recent years.

While Citi took a $3.8 billion hit because of the deal, which essentially wiped out its earnings for the quarter, it can afford it. Last year, the bank earned $14 billion and had $35 billion of cash on its balance sheet as of June 30.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Citigroup misled investors about the quality of risky mortgages it bundled into securities during the housing boom, allowing it to increase profits and market share.

"Under the terms of this settlement, the bank has admitted to its misdeeds in great detail. The bank's activities shattered lives and livelihoods throughout the country," he said. "They contributed mightily to the financial crisis that devastated our economy in 2008.

Indy: Gee, another lender paying fines for deceiving the public in the events that led up to the market crash in 2007 . . . and yet, the conservatives here still recite the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ that Frank ‘forced’ them to commit the financial malfeasance! I wish I was making this up . . .

And some of the others:

JP Morgan - $13 billion in fines

B of A - Over $50 billion in fines

Countrywide Financial: - ‘only’ $600 million in fines

All told, the amount of fines for the banks and lenders that defrauded the public are over $100 billion!

Yet, this is a small ‘fine’ compared to the damage done to the economy . . . much of it started with Clinton/Gramm FMA that rescinded the regulations that were put in place after the depression.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:00 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Yes, I agree . . . thanks Tech and please, everyone go to this link and read the resumes . . . see how many write for conservative business magazines . . .

How many of the 30 "team members" at Skeptical Science are the climatologists defined in your original appeal to authority, Indy?

Indy: How many of the references at www.skepticalscience.com that supports their data are from legitimate scientist and not ‘business Op-ed writers’?

Any libertarian think tanks? Nope . . .

In any event, we can go down any of the articles they posted and cite same . . . care to start? What are you waiting for?


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:03 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Let’s review what I wrote that you ignored…

Why don't admit your economic error on the ripple effect of minimum wage increase instead of deflecting, Indy?

Indy: Why have raises to the minimum wage see economic gains?

Why have both parties in the past approved raises consistent with inflation in a bipartisan manner?

Why is it that only a small percentage of republicans that are libertarian market fundamentalist argue against helping workers out of poverty?

Finally, why do you ignore the ‘wealth concentration’ that your policies support?

Tech wrote: Everyone makes mistakes. Intellectually honest people acknowledge them, learn and improve their arguments.

Indy: You should write that on a 3x5 card and recite it to yourself each morning in the mirror . . .


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:04 p.m.

C(omdey)aptG(old)ene wrote: It is absolutely incredible how blind Indy Nile can be. Much to steve's credit he has come to realize that the "team" at SS has none of the qualifications that the AGW alarmists demand that the AGW realists have. Really sad and pathetic.

Indy: It’s comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:07 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Skeptical Science is a news aggregator, like Matt Drudge. They link to the scientific journals (like Drudge sometimes links to real news people). The only requirement needed is a dedication to the factual truth.

Indy: It’s sad that you actually have to say that out loud!


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:15 p.m.

Tech wrote: You entirely missed the point of the argument, ricketzz. Skeptical Science is an AGW advocacy site and isn't staffed by the climatologists Indy has recommended we defer to. Climate Alarmists continually appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum and insist the science is "settled", so shut up.

Indy: It appears the only ones that don’t accept the science on climate change are ideology based conservative libertarian market fundamentalist . . . that aren’t trained in science!

Tech wrote: Are you now making the argument that information should be judged solely on content rather than source? If so, welcome to rationality.

Indy: What’s rational about getting your scientific information from ‘business Op-ed writers’ and Fox?

Tech wrote: You are rather blithe about the existential threat the administrative state poses to our Republic.

Indy: I understand that the poster lacking any type of scientific credentials returns to his ‘safe haven’ of legal protocols in that he's more interested in those protocols to the actual reality going on around him.

This is why I’ve noted that you don’t want attorneys running things . . . . their focus is far too narrow . . . and ends up putting all of us at great risk.


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:31 a.m.

Tech plays stupid. He knows what aggregator means. Skeptical Science finds science papers, reads them, reports on them, links to them so you can read them for yourself. This is mainstream science. When YOU post something contrarian it is from someone else who gets paid to muddy the waters to delay action, on behalf of big old fashioned coal or petroleum. There is no scientific debate. The debate is one of credibility vs insanity. Tech is insane.


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:30 p.m.

Indy: It’s sad that you actually have to say that out loud!

It's sad when ricketzz has to say anything out loud.


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:42 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Tech plays stupid. He knows what aggregator means. Skeptical Science finds science papers, reads them, reports on them, links to them so you can read them for yourself. This is mainstream science. When YOU post something contrarian it is from someone else who gets paid to muddy the waters to delay action, on behalf of big old fashioned coal or petroleum. There is no scientific debate. The debate is one of credibility vs insanity. Tech is insane.

Indy: Yes, but Tech’s not insane.

He’s a true believer ideologue that ignores what doesn’t map to his ideology.

And then as you noted, he tries to explain away the reality with his ideology.

What’s dangerous about that is that fellow believers are quick to accept his assertions without thinking (think ideology worship, religious conservatism).

In any event, the real culprit is the media that likes to recite the most outrageous nonsense for selling their ‘media’ product. There’s no honor in that . . . but there is $$$$$.

But I encourage ewveryone to go www.skepticalscience.com and search on your topic.

Then see the links and who is making the points.

Is it conservative Op-ed business writers? No . . .

Is it scientists? Yes.


CaptGene: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:48 p.m.

Yes, go to: skepticalscience.com. then click on the "newcomers start here" button: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html

There you will find all the KoolAid® rich alarmist BS you can stand written by a guy named John Cook. If you go down to the bottom of the page you will find a section titled: "About John Cook". In that section Mr. Cook tells you about his education, none of which is climate related, then he says this:

"I'm not a professional scientist"

In other words, Indy Nile is, once again and as always, dead wrong. Stooge.


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:01 p.m.

Indy: """Then see the links and who is making the points."""

Says the guy who's been hawking the 99 cent pamphlet from disgraced hyper-partisan David Brock about Benghazi. Now THAT'S insane.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:24 p.m.

No doubt John Cook's bio was written by a "religious conservative libertarian market fundamentalist", CG.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:38 p.m.

"There is no scientific debate. The debate is one of credibility vs insanity. Tech is insane." - ricketzz

"The BBC wants their airwaves cleansed of the confusing deniers, for the greater good. I agree." - ricketzz

"Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order." - ricketzz

Thanks for providing your sanity baseline, ricketzz. :-D


CaptGene: Posted: July 17, 2014 11:46 p.m.

Well done tech, you owe me a screen cleaning!


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 1:21 a.m.

As you so ably demonstrated, it's easy, CG.

But first, the science:

Barrel + Fish + Shoot


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:25 a.m.

Every one needs their own little support group I suppose. Tech makes a perfect rightie; he repeats things he knows don't mean what he is trying to imply, because of the shock value of the statement at first glance. My statement, out of context, sounds like a stark declaration of ideological rigidity when it is merely an observation of the methods being used by the REAL government.

I am an anarchist. I don't believe in any kind of personal power stronger than anyone else's personal power. I don't believe in governments larger than City States. (I trust familial units, villages the most.) Bullying is a crime against nature.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 12:04 p.m.

Those statements aren't out of context, ricketzz. They reveal your true nature.

Here's the latest example from another thread:

"I am definitely a believer in a superior power, but that superior power is the synergy of a mob. I bow to no one."

I've also noted you've taken up Indy's odd habit of referring to others in the 3rd person while attacking directly.


ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:15 a.m.

Your grammar nitpicking isn't helpful. I communicate.

Yes. I advocate direct democracy. Sue me.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 11:13 a.m.

It's not the grammar, ricketzz. It's the attempt to depersonalize the individual that's the target of an attack. It's disrespectful to address someone in the 3rd person when they're present. That extends to virtual presence in these discussion boards. It's rude and doesn't improve your argument, if any.

Direct democracy exacted capital punishment on someone they considered a querulous old man who engaged in speech they found inconvenient. You may recall his name because he is remembered and his executioners are not.

The Founders formed a Republic because direct democracy descends into mob rule and has failed throughout history. It consumes itself because there's no check on human appetites.

Your advocacy of state censorship by the BBC is a modern day example of how a group you disagree with is silenced. It's the exact opposite of the democratic ideal, i.e. every citizen has a voice.

I doubt you realize how conflicted your communicated positions are.


ricketzz: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:56 a.m.

I know the theory of the republican flavor of liberal democracy. How is not making a move without consulting pollsters not a crude form of direct democracy?

If I "depersonalize" when "attacking" an individual I am tying to be nice. I really don't have strong feelings for anyone here, either way. I attack bad and/or evil ideas and encourage people to not be so lazy when shopping for news. I will occasionally throw in a concept from our Founding as a nation, then you call me a Marxist. Did I miss anything?


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:02 p.m.

How can a representative government operate on behalf of constituents without their input? Polls are one way of measuring priorities.

I cite Marxist ideology when you attempt to weave collectivism erroneously into our Founding Documents and Principles.

We're citizens who associate for mutual benefit without surrendering individual rights and freedoms. The state doesn't take precedence over the individual as it does in collectivism.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:52 p.m.

The "usual suspects" who post here (have I become one, shades of Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly"?) steadily type about the danger of power being concentrated in government.

Never is there a comment regarding the full blown, obvious emergence of fascism in America. In the last 40 years, under both Democratic and Republican control in Washington, the merger epidemic among large American, and multi-national corporations has raged largely unchecked.

Just now, there are active mergers proposed among Fox, Time Warner, AT&T, Dish TV, and so many more. The oil trust was reconstituted long ago with Aramco and OPEC.

"Tech" thinks that direct democracies have failed historically because of "unchecked human appetites".

Those appetites are fed beyond engorgement by the "K street crowd" in our nation capitol.

Freedom is an illusion under this system.




tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 12:33 a.m.

I did post a link regarding the administrative state that's germane to your post, Mr. Cameron.

L’État, C’est Moi
With the stroke of a pen, the executive branch reigns supreme

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/l-tat-c-est-moi_796381.html


ricketzz: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:56 a.m.

I am accused of weaving "collectivism" (I listen to Mark Levin, by the way) into a building code for a Republic that begins with "We, the People". Right.


tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 11:26 a.m.

"(I listen to Mark Levin, by the way)" - ricketzz

Isn't that special? I don't.

col·lec·tiv·ism
[kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]
noun
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it
the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.
Origin:
1875–80; < French collectivisme; see collective, -ism


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:43 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Then see the links and who is making the points."""

Says the guy who's been hawking the 99 cent pamphlet from disgraced hyper-partisan David Brock about Benghazi. Now THAT'S insane.

Indy: Yes, I can’t recommend the account in this simple eBook that clarifies all the ‘innuendo and speculation’ nonsense recited here by this poster.

Here you go . . . a must read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

But let’s take this poster’s criticism a bit farther back to the time of the nation’s founders . . .

Would the pamphlets of the Founding Fathers distributed ‘freely’ be ridiculed by this poster?


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:47 p.m.

Tech wrote: The Founders formed a Republic because direct democracy descends into mob rule and has failed throughout history. It consumes itself because there's no check on human appetites.

Indy: Wow . . . but nevertheless consistent for a libertarian market fundamentalist that only ‘accepts’ decision by the ‘elite’ over ‘we the people’.

He believes the public will simply ‘vote away his wealth’ . . . but it is possible of the public if it isn’t educated to the nature of topics like ‘sustainability’.

And why does this poster ignore this topic?

Well, he ignores the basic premise of economics that being ‘scarcity’.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: How can a representative government operate on behalf of constituents without their input? Polls are one way of measuring priorities.

Indy: The major mistake this poster makes repeatedly at this forum is ‘assuming’ that polls of the uninformed are going to make the best policy. Obviously, that’s not true . . .

And sadly, this sort of plays out in today’s politics where politicians who pander to the public for power, ignore their responsibility to educate them.

In any event, several conservative ‘polls’ showed Romney winning . . .

Tech wrote: I cite Marxist ideology when you attempt to weave collectivism erroneously into our Founding Documents and Principles.

Indy: Give the poster credit for cleverly ‘framing’ the issue of a democracy of ‘we the people’ as ‘collectivism’.

But sadly, libertarian ideology sees the danger of people voting . . . versus letting the ‘elite’ chart our future.

How’s that working out say in 2007 . . .

Tech wrote: We're citizens who associate for mutual benefit without surrendering individual rights and freedoms. The state doesn't take precedence over the individual as it does in collectivism.

Indy: What this guy can’t grasp is our Constitution including the Bill of Rights is what ‘protects’ our rights, liberty, and freedom’.

That’s why we have ‘courts’ with ‘we the people’ juries not ideologist telling us their vision.

It’s not libertarian ‘fringe groups’ reciting their ideology at forums like this that protects us.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 5:01 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: The "usual suspects" who post here (have I become one, shades of Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly"?) steadily type about the danger of power being concentrated in government.

Indy: You know when you’ve become one . . . you know . . .

Allan_Cameron wrote: Never is there a comment regarding the full blown, obvious emergence of fascism in America. In the last 40 years, under both Democratic and Republican control in Washington, the merger epidemic among large American, and multi-national corporations has raged largely unchecked.

Indy: Yes, fascism is more or less defined as ‘libertarian market fundamentalism’ which I discuss here all the time.

These folks don’t like to be called fascist and indeed their current ‘label’ is in far greater use here now.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Just now, there are active mergers proposed among Fox, Time Warner, AT&T, Dish TV, and so many more. The oil trust was reconstituted long ago with Aramco and OPEC.

Indy: Yes, it is concerning made more so by the ‘corporatization’ of our congress through lobbyist that now deem that ‘we the money’ is more important than ‘we the people’.

Allan_Cameron wrote: "Tech" thinks that direct democracies have failed historically because of "unchecked human appetites". Those appetites are fed beyond engorgement by the "K street crowd" in our nation capitol. Freedom is an illusion under this system.

Indy: The ‘elites’, the top 1% that has 40% of all wealth in the US don’t want their wealth ‘voted away’ . . .

The poster Tech asserts that wealth concentration in the US is ‘preferred’ . . . as you’ll see if you stay around here awhile.

But indeed, the ‘corporatocracy’ of the US is in progress . . .


ricketzz: Posted: July 23, 2014 10:10 a.m.

If that's what you mean when you call me a "collectivist" then you are badly off the mark. I don't subscribe to isms if I can help it. My only eternal truth is entropy. You dislike what you perceive as "big central government". What about bigger, more dictatorial, power of megacorporations.

Newscorpse (Fox, Fox News, Fox Studios, Wall Street Journal) is trying to eat Time-Warner (WB, CNN, Warner Bros.) to combine 2 of the 5 biggest media companies in the world into a behemoth that spies on public figures and owns governments. Should we have an emasculated central government and just let the Murdochs and Prince Alaweed continue to misinform and frighten the people who still trust the media for news? Or should the media fear the government if the media starts twisting the truth?

The "central government" is the People uniting for common purposes, like policing multinational companies who think they are God. Only a plundering stateless actor fears that.



tech: Posted: July 23, 2014 8:42 p.m.

It's both, ricketzz, i.e. Big Government and their rent seeking Big Corp and NGO allies. The blind spot you have is for the former. Specifically, you don't seem to understand that the administrative state acts in its own interests and isn't accountable to citizens.

Public choice theory is often used to explain how political decision-making results in outcomes that conflict with the preferences of the general public. For example, many advocacy group and pork barrel projects are not the desire of the overall democracy. However, it makes sense for politicians to support these projects. It may make them feel powerful and important. It can also benefit them financially by opening the door to future wealth as lobbyists. The project may be of interest to the politician's local constituency, increasing district votes or campaign contributions. The politician pays little or no cost to gain these benefits, as he is spending public money. Special-interest lobbyists are also behaving rationally. They can gain government favors worth millions or billions for relatively small investments. They face a risk of losing out to their competitors if they don't seek these favors. The taxpayer is also behaving rationally. The cost of defeating any one government give-away is very high, while the benefits to the individual taxpayer are very small. Each citizen pays only a few pennies or a few dollars for any given government favor, while the costs of ending that favor would be many times higher. Everyone involved has rational incentives to do exactly what they're doing, even though the desire of the general constituency is opposite. Costs are diffused, while benefits are concentrated. The voices of vocal minorities with much to gain are heard over those of indifferent majorities with little to individually lose.

(cont.)


tech: Posted: July 23, 2014 8:42 p.m.

While good government tends to be a pure public good for the mass of voters, there may be many advocacy groups that have strong incentives for lobbying the government to implement specific policies that would benefit them, potentially at the expense of the general public. For example, lobbying by the sugar manufacturers might result in an inefficient subsidy for the production of sugar, either direct or by protectionist measures. The costs of such inefficient policies are dispersed over all citizens, and therefore unnoticeable to each individual. On the other hand, the benefits are shared by a small special-interest group with a strong incentive to perpetuate the policy by further lobbying. Due to rational ignorance, the vast majority of voters will be unaware of the effort; in fact, although voters may be aware of special-interest lobbying efforts, this may merely select for policies which are even harder to evaluate by the general public, rather than improving their overall efficiency. Even if the public were able to evaluate policy proposals effectively, they would find it infeasible to engage in collective action in order to defend their diffuse interest. Therefore, theorists expect that numerous special interests will be able to successfully lobby for various inefficient policies. In public choice theory, such scenarios of inefficient government policies are referred to as government failure — a term akin to market failure from earlier theoretical welfare economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice


ricketzz: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:50 a.m.

There used to be more integrity. People did the right thing. Now everyone is gaming everyone else. Reagan turned the USA in Bizarro USA. Greed is good. Net worth is how real men compare virility. Those billions of dollars represent a high scoring pinball machine to those people. They brag about how they trick the pathetic efforts to reign them in. We are in uncharted water, but it feels like a sci-fi story about a dystopian future (which I can learn to enjoy, for a while).


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 26, 2014 7:57 a.m.

The camouflage covering up the 9000 pound ape in the room begins to slip. How many here would agree or disagree? Homo Sapiens are soon to be fully extinct. (Not so unusual, so are above 90 percent of all species that ever lived).

Our exit is assured, in that there are not just one or two certain means to that end. There are dozens.

Who here is interested in confronting our fate?


tech: Posted: July 26, 2014 7:11 p.m.

Human evolution is assured and we've already accomplished an exit. Humans are orbiting the Earth right now and our spacecraft have escaped the solar system.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...