Jump to content

The Republican Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    1498

  • Balta1701

    1480

  • southsider2k5

    1432

  • mr_genius

    991

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 12:42 PM)
Mock all you want, but there is a reason these abuses are getting tons of press. There has been a series of these stories in the Trib.

They absolutely should get coverage, and Illinois does seem particularly corrupt. I was just curious if jenks had actual plans or desires for a certain state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2...nces/50888948/1

 

LONDON (AP) – WikiLeaks — the online anti-secrecy organization whose spectacular leaks of classified data shook Washington and other world capitals and exposed the inner workings of international diplomacy — may be weeks away from collapse, the group's leader warned Monday.

 

 

By Elizabeth Dalziel, AP

 

Although its attention-grabbing disclosures spread outrage and embarrassment across military and diplomatic circles, WikiLeaks' inability to shake the restrictions imposed by American financial companies may prove its undoing.

 

"If WikiLeaks does not find a way to remove this blockade we will simply not be able to continue by the turn of the new year," founder Julian Assange told journalists at London's Frontline Club. "If we don't knock down the blockade we simply will not be able to continue."

 

WikiLeaks, launched as an online repository for confidential information, shot to notoriety with the April 2010 disclosure of footage of two Reuters journalists killed by a U.S. military strike in Baghdad.

 

The Pentagon had claimed that the journalists were likely "intermixed among the insurgents," but the helicopter footage, which captured U.S. airmen firing on prone figures and joking about "dead bastards," unsettled many across the world.

 

But the video was just a foretaste. In the following months, WikiLeaks published nearly half a million secret military documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a whole the documents provided an unprecedented level of detail into the grueling, bloody conflicts. Individually, many raised concerns about the actions of the U.S. and its local allies — for example by detailing evidence of abuse, torture and worse by Iraqi security forces.

 

Although U.S. officials railed against the disclosures, claiming that they were putting lives at risk, it wasn't until WikiLeaks began publishing a massive trove of 250,000 U.S. State Department cables late last year that the financial screws began to tighten.

 

One after the other, MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Western Union stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks, starving the organization of cash as it was coming under intense political, financial and legal pressure.

 

Assange said Monday that the restrictions — imposed in early December — had cut off some 95 percent of the money he thinks his organization could have received.

 

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnson defended the estimate as "conservative," noting that in 2010 the average monthly donation to WikiLeaks had been more than 100,000 euros ($140,000), while in 2011 the amount had fallen to between 6,000 and 7,000 euros.

 

WikiLeaks has long shown signs of financial distress. In a recent statement about Assange's contested "autobiography" — which was published without his consent — the group said it did not have enough money to hire a lawyer.

 

Assange remains under legal pressure in Europe and the United States. A decision on whether to extradite him to Sweden to face sex crime allegations is expected in the next few weeks. He also being investigated by a grand jury in the United States.

 

Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is suspected of giving WikiLeaks much of its American material, remains in custody at Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/o...h-obama-memoir/

 

The U.S. Department of State has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams from My Father” more than a decade after its release.

 

The U.S. embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s bestselling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order with the same book seller, Kalemat Arabia, for more than $9,000 for copies of the same book, federal purchasing records show.

 

Around the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. embassy in South Korea had the same idea, spending more than $6,000 for copies of “Dreams from My Father”.

 

One month later, the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the Indonesian version of Mr. Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

 

A review of the expenditures in a federal purchasing database did not reveal any examples of past purchases by the State Department of books by President Bush or President Clinton. The purchases of Mr. Obama’s literary work mostly, but not always, took place in the months after Mr. Obama captured the White House.

 

Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, said if the federal government is looking to cut costs, eliminating purchases of Mr. Obama’s books is a good place to start.

 

“It’s inappropriate for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent on this,” she said. “This sounds like propaganda.”

 

But State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the book purchases followed regular government procurement rules. He said diplomats have long used books as a way to help broker talks on important foreign policy matters.

 

“The structure and the presidency of the United States is an integral component of representing the United States overseas,” Mr. Clay said. “We often use books to engage key audiences in discussions of foreign policy.”

 

He also said books are purchased to stock the State Department’s “information resource centers,” which he said are located around the world and provide books about the U.S. covering issues such as culture, history and values.

 

“We also provide key library collections with books about the United States,” he said.

 

There’s no indication the White House knew about the purchases, which overall represent just a fraction of the nearly quarter million dollars Mr. Obama donated to charities last year and his more than $1.7 million in overall income. Mr. Clay said book orders are normally made directly by embassies based on “their experience and knowledge on the ground of the intended audience …”

 

A White House spokesman did not respond to email messages.

 

The records show a mix of English and foreign language purchases of Mr. Obama’s books.

 

The U.S. embassy in Indonesia spent more than $4,800 in September 2009 for copies of both “Dreams of My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” though the title of the latter book is spelled “Authority of Hope” in the federal spending database. The embassy spent $3,885 for additional Indonesian copies of “The Audacity of Hope”, records show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:44 PM)
Awww, how precious. So Barackus the Great gets to profit off of tax payer money on book royalties?

 

What a f***tard.

 

See, and this is the cascading issue I spoke about when it comes to Chicago politics and the waste/fraud therein. While it's easy to dismiss this sort of thing as a drop in the bucket...I mean, when we normally talk in Millions/Billions/Trillions, a few thousand measly dollars doesn't really matter in comparison. But when you take all of these miniscule purchases, payments, etc., and add them up, it comes out to a LOT more than people would expect. In relation to my point in another thread about how much waste exists in Chicago alone, and how deeply engrained it is to the point it's almost impossible to uncover so long as those doing it don't "get greedy", a few thousand here and there spread across thousands of people spread across decades adds up to a LOT of theft/fraud/waste. And while I'd love to believe it's just hundreds or thousands we're talking about, there are cases where the theft is a lot more than just that.

 

The point is, when in debt, and I don't care if it's 100$ or 14 trillion$, you shouldn't be wasting money on frivolous anything. But most learn from their masters -- borrow and spend -- and when you can't pay it back, borrow more. But whatever you do, don't stop consuming.

 

I see friends of mine who are buried in debt, yet somehow are always eating out. I know this because they love posting pictures of everything on Facebook. Meanwhile, I'm living happily debt free and they wonder why I don't go out more often.

 

Maybe that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Gotta love the Unions:

 

 

 

 

If you're a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children, you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

 

Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

 

Michigan Department of Community Health Director Olga Dazzo explained the process in to her members of her staff. "MQC3 basically runs the program for SEIU and passes the union dues from the state to the union," she wrote in an email obtained by the Mackinac Center. Initiated in 2006 under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., the plan reportedly provides the SEIU with $6 million annually in union dues deducted from those Medicaid subsidies.

 

“We're not even home health care workers. We're just parents taking care of our kids,” Robert Haynes, a retired Detroit police officer, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30. They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that's being sent to the union.”

 

According to the Mackinac Center, the theoretical public employer for whom the Haynes' work is the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), an entity within the DCH that continues to operate, even though the state legislature has defunded it. Even the MQC3 calls the families hiring in-home health care providers "employers of providers," but these health care providers are also treated as employers of MQC3 when it comes time each month to take dues out of their Medicaid payment and send it to the SEIU.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Haynes, of course, are both the parents (the employer) and the health care providers for their children, but they still lose money to the SEIU every month, despite having no interest in joining the union. They have been arbitrarily classified as state employees so that the union can take money from them.

 

Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., already ended a similar scheme to provide unions with new "public employees" in the area of child care. His predecessor, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had classified in-home daycare providers as public employees -- a designation that forced them to pay union dues but conferred no other benefits upon them. Snyder's director of the Department of Human Services ended that program. "[We] will stop all funding and, because these providers are not state employees, will also cease collecting union dues,” DHS director Maura Corrigan said at the time.

 

Michigan's state House has already passed a bill to prevent this sort of rent-seeking by public-sector unions, but it has stalled in the state Senate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 08:44 PM)
Awww, how precious. So Barackus the Great gets to profit off of tax payer money on book royalties?

 

What a f***tard.

 

Total f***tard! The people responsible should be fired immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 06:20 PM)
Gotta love the Unions:

 

 

 

 

If you're a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children, you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

 

Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

 

Michigan Department of Community Health Director Olga Dazzo explained the process in to her members of her staff. "MQC3 basically runs the program for SEIU and passes the union dues from the state to the union," she wrote in an email obtained by the Mackinac Center. Initiated in 2006 under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., the plan reportedly provides the SEIU with $6 million annually in union dues deducted from those Medicaid subsidies.

 

“We're not even home health care workers. We're just parents taking care of our kids,” Robert Haynes, a retired Detroit police officer, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Our daughter is 34 and our son is 30. They have cerebral palsy. They are basically like 6-month-olds in adult bodies. They need to be fed and they wear diapers. We could sure use that $30 a month that's being sent to the union.”

 

According to the Mackinac Center, the theoretical public employer for whom the Haynes' work is the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), an entity within the DCH that continues to operate, even though the state legislature has defunded it. Even the MQC3 calls the families hiring in-home health care providers "employers of providers," but these health care providers are also treated as employers of MQC3 when it comes time each month to take dues out of their Medicaid payment and send it to the SEIU.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Haynes, of course, are both the parents (the employer) and the health care providers for their children, but they still lose money to the SEIU every month, despite having no interest in joining the union. They have been arbitrarily classified as state employees so that the union can take money from them.

 

Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Mich., already ended a similar scheme to provide unions with new "public employees" in the area of child care. His predecessor, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had classified in-home daycare providers as public employees -- a designation that forced them to pay union dues but conferred no other benefits upon them. Snyder's director of the Department of Human Services ended that program. "[We] will stop all funding and, because these providers are not state employees, will also cease collecting union dues,” DHS director Maura Corrigan said at the time.

 

Michigan's state House has already passed a bill to prevent this sort of rent-seeking by public-sector unions, but it has stalled in the state Senate.

 

It sounded so simple in the beginning. Replace expensive home health workers with relatives at a much smaller salary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 06:40 PM)
It sounded so simple in the beginning. Replace expensive home health workers with relatives at a much smaller salary.

And then take forced kickbacks to the Democratic Fundraising Organization. Oops, I mean to the SEIU. Oh yeah, same thing.

 

WHY the f*ck is the STATE ever responsible for deducting dues for the union, THAT is bulls***, any way you look at it. They should have NO reason to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 10:06 PM)
And then take forced kickbacks to the Democratic Fundraising Organization. Oops, I mean to the SEIU. Oh yeah, same thing.

 

WHY the f*ck is the STATE ever responsible for deducting dues for the union, THAT is bulls***, any way you look at it. They should have NO reason to do that.

 

WHY the f*ck is the STATE ever responsible for deducting voluntary insurance premiums, charitable donations, etc., THAT is bulls***, any way you look at it. They should have NO reason to do that.

 

Same thing or different? I have premiums for a voluntary short term disability and hospitalization automatically paid out, a donation to the United Way, and membership dues to a professional organization I belong to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 05:38 AM)
WHY the f*ck is the STATE ever responsible for deducting voluntary insurance premiums, charitable donations, etc., THAT is bulls***, any way you look at it. They should have NO reason to do that.

 

Same thing or different? I have premiums for a voluntary short term disability and hospitalization automatically paid out, a donation to the United Way, and membership dues to a professional organization I belong to.

VOLUNTARY. Union dues deductions, NOT VOLUNTARY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 06:24 PM)
In 2002, no one would have asked the quesiton.

 

 

Ah yes the change you can believe in. Just go away and make your million dollar speeche and eat your arugula and fade away. But yet somehow I don't think BO will fade away like Bush. He too narcissistic for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/corpora...essive-14973592

 

Why That Corporate Cash Pile Isn't So Impressive

 

By BERNARD CONDON AP Business Writer

NEW YORK November 17, 2011 (AP)

 

Hardly a day goes by without some politician or pundit pointing out that companies are hoarding cash — roughly $3 trillion of it. If only they would spend it, the thinking goes, the economy might get better.

 

But the story is not as simple as that. Though it seems to have escaped nearly everyone's notice, companies have piled up even more debt lately than they have cash. Financial experts say it makes companies more vulnerable than they look.

 

"The record cash story is bull market baloney," says David Stockman, a former U.S. budget director.

 

U.S. companies are sitting on $358 billion more cash than they had at the start of the recession in December 2007, according to the latest Federal Reserve figures, from June. But in the same period, what they owed rose $428 billion.

 

Companies borrow money all the time, of course. They borrow to build factories, cover expenses, even make payroll. The problem: Debt doesn't go away. A business can cut costs during a recession. But it can't just shred the IOUs.

 

Heavy debt means companies could have to dip into those reserves of cash to pay their lenders. And when interest rates eventually go up, companies will have to spend more money just to service the debt.

 

In the last recession, which ended in June 2009, small businesses that depended on credit cards and bank loans got slapped with higher rates just as sales began to drop. Some got cut off all together.

 

Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak & Co., says business debt is too high even if the U.S. manages to stay out of a second recession. If economic growth doesn't pick up, "they'll be more bankruptcies, and more defaults," he predicts.

 

Even if companies used cash to pay off what they owe, they would be left with plenty of debt — in fact, an amount equal to 83 percent of all the goods and services they produce, according to Federal Reserve data for incorporated businesses.

 

That's an improvement from March 2009, the low point of the Great Recession, when companies owed 95 percent. To stay afloat, companies tapped credit lines at banks, increasing debt while they were bringing in less money. They burned through cash to meet expenses.

 

Before the recession, though, you have to go back at least six decades to find a time when companies owed so much compared with what they produce, says Andrew Smithers, a London consultant who has written extensively about debt.

 

In short, American business is awash in cash like a man who borrowed from a bank is rich. He may have plenty of money in his pocket, but he still has to return it.

 

Already, there are signs that companies are struggling to pay off debt. Since this summer, buyers of bonds issued by deeply indebted companies — called junk bonds because they're so risky — have been demanding 14 percent more in annual interest. Some companies haven't been able to sell bonds at all.

 

The financial picture is at least better for the biggest, publicly traded firms. Non-financial companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 are making more money than ever and adding to their cash fast. It's middle-sized and small companies that appear to be most vulnerable.

 

"There are almost two economies out there — the big S&P 500 companies, then everyone else," says Michael Thompson, managing director of S&P's valuation and risk strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0930932412.html

 

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

 

By DANIEL B. KLEIN

 

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

 

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

 

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

 

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

 

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

 

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

 

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

 

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

 

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

 

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

 

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

 

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

 

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

 

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 08:06 PM)
So apparently there was a recent follow up that found what anyone could have predicted: ask questions that challenge cons. orthodoxy and they are suddenly "unenlightened"

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...o-are-you/8713/

 

I'm sorry, did you say if they question man-made climate change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...