2016 Presidential Candidate

[MoonShadow]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

[clifp]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 

Here is one quote from his site.

 "In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"

Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart.    I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income?   So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.

This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics.  "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population."  The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country.  That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the  country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities.  Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage.  My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study  circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[beltim]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

That claim would require some support even if it were the only issue, but the infrastructure we're talking about is much, much broader than roads.  The air, rail, sea, pipeline, and power infrastructures all need considerable investment to remain competitive, and these issues have nothing to due with "misappropriation of highway tax funds."

[forummm]

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.

Possible since we are in a kleptocracy.  I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts.  And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.

Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?

No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.

[MoonShadow]

But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.

So did a lot of politically connected people, and those banksters would be sure to roll all over their 'benefactors' if they ended up inside a criminal court.  That is why this will never happen.

[regulator]

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.

Possible since we are in a kleptocracy.  I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts.  And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.

Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?

No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.

Civil litigation settlements have been in the tens of billions for the large banks.

I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.

[Chris22]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

[Chris22]

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.

Possible since we are in a kleptocracy.  I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts.  And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.

Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.

The problem is finding real, true, criminal acts.  Most specifically criminal acts were committed by very low level people (forging documents on income, etc to get loans and the like).  Most of the real high-impact stuff was possibly deceptive or immoral, but not necessarily illegal.  If I sell you a cardboard box by telling you it's full of gold (prime CDOs, etc) and feel free to verify it yourself, and you fail to do your due diligence and just buy it in a hurry because you think it's going up up up, according to our current laws that's on you.  Quite frankly, most of it was people using such complex algorithms that they didn't understand that it was more ignorance than anything else.

[nereo]

This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics.  "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population."  The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country.  That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the  country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities.  Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage.  My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study  circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.

Two thoughts on this:

First - I'm not convinced that "wealth" in the equality/inequality debates is defined simply as "home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities".  Certainly other assets have to factor in, like buildings, land, privately-held companies, etc.  I'd imagine even art, jewelery and cars must count too.  Note that these assets tend to overwhelming favor the upper quintile of our population.

Second - I don't quite understand why you think this is misleading.  Certainly there are millions of Americans who have a net worth of ≤ $0, even when you total up all the money they could get for their cars, phones, art, jewelery etc.  A typical couple in their early 30s might have two car loans, credit card debt, student loan debt and possibly a HELOC on the negative side of the ledger.  On the plus side they've got a bunch of stuff that's rapidly depreciated since they purchased it (cars, cell phones, clothes, televisions, etc).  If they held an estate sale and sold all they had, they might garner $10-30k... possibly not even enough to counter all their debt.  Why?  Because virtually everything typical Americans buy depreciates rapidly and is often bought on credit.
OTOH, the wealthy can buy art, property, businesses and other things that either generate money or at least don't depreciate as fast.  Of course they can also blow it on depreciating assets too.

So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading?  A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts.  My personal reaction to such statistics if that doesn't put any responsibility on middle class individuals who have a net worth ~$0.  They could have funded their 401(k) and IRAs every year, but instead they have the newest smartphone, drive fancy cars bought on credit and own way more house than they need to.

[Chris22]

This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics.  "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population."  The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country.  That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the  country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities.  Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage.  My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study  circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.

Two thoughts on this:

First - I'm not convinced that "wealth" in the equality/inequality debates is defined simply as "home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities".  Certainly other assets have to factor in, like buildings, land, privately-held companies, etc.  I'd imagine even art, jewelery and cars must count too.  Note that these assets tend to overwhelming favor the upper quintile of our population.

Second - I don't quite understand why you think this is misleading.  Certainly there are millions of Americans who have a net worth of ≤ $0, even when you total up all the money they could get for their cars, phones, art, jewelery etc.  A typical couple in their early 30s might have two car loans, credit card debt, student loan debt and possibly a HELOC on the negative side of the ledger.  On the plus side they've got a bunch of stuff that's rapidly depreciated since they purchased it (cars, cell phones, clothes, televisions, etc).  If they held an estate sale and sold all they had, they might garner $10-30k... possibly not even enough to counter all their debt.  Why?  Because virtually everything typical Americans buy depreciates rapidly and is often bought on credit.
OTOH, the wealthy can buy art, property, businesses and other things that either generate money or at least don't depreciate as fast.  Of course they can also blow it on depreciating assets too.

So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading?  A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts.  My personal reaction to such statistics if that doesn't put any responsibility on middle class individuals who have a net worth ~$0.  They could have funded their 401(k) and IRAs every year, but instead they have the newest smartphone, drive fancy cars bought on credit and own way more house than they need to.

I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages.  I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time.  It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how?  If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet. 

[MoonShadow]

So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading?  A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts.

It's misleading because those with a negative net worth actually tilt the balance towards the top quintile mathmaticly, although it's not actually wealth they possess.

[Gin1984]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

[Gin1984]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?

[Cressida]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?

No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.

I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.

This is classic. "All Democratic candidates are in thrall to radical leftist groups!!" "Like who?" "I'm not telling."

[regulator]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

I love it!  An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!

[nereo]

I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages.  I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time.  It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how?  If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet.

Ok - well regarding mortgages they shouldn't change your net worth substantially - basically only the equity 'counts'.  And for student loans, well I do think that's important.  If you have $80k in student loans that's going to have a big effect on you for years to come.  I'm not saying it's not the borrower's responsibility for taking out those loans int he first place, but it's all part of the equation showing how big a gap there is. 

It's misleading because those with a negative net worth actually tilt the balance towards the top quintile mathmaticly, although it's not actually wealth they possess.

Of course it tilts the balance towards the top quintile.  I think that's the entire value of the such metrics - it shows what percentage of your population are essentially one catastrophy from financial ruin.  If it's 20, 30, 40% I think that's a problem.  What we do about it depends on why the imbalance exists - are poor people making really stupid decisions?  Are things truly harder for someone earning just below the median income? 
Personally I think at least part of the blame rests on our really dumb purchasing decisions.  Statistics don't tell us the why - just the what.  It's up to us to figure out what they mean.

[beltim]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

Fair enough.  I didn't know Kasich's views on abortion before this. 

Also, I don't think I fully parsed the bolded part Basenji's statement before.  Does that mean absolutely no restrictions on abortion?

In terms of moderate vs extreme position, I would note that Kasich is clearly in the moderate position - which, depending on the poll, is either "abortion should be legal under most circumstances" or, more commonly, "abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances." 

[Gin1984]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

Fair enough.  I didn't know Kasich's views on abortion before this. 

Also, I don't think I fully parsed the bolded part Basenji's statement before.  Does that mean absolutely no restrictions on abortion?

In terms of moderate vs extreme position, I would note that Kasich is clearly in the moderate position - which, depending on the poll, is either "abortion should be legal under most circumstances" or, more commonly, "abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances."

Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother.  If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks) and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case.  That is not moderate. 
I am not moderate, I think we should go with the Canadian model, but I do know moderate is for this, and he is no where near moderate.

[beltim]

Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother.  If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)

I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester.  Can you clarify?

[beltim]

and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case.  That is not moderate. 

Reading up on this, I completely agree that the laws Kasich has approved have dramatically reduced access, in quite probably an unconstitutional way.  It's quite possible that this situation is even worse than described by your NARAL quote earlier, which is surprising to me.

[Bob W]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 

Here is one quote from his site.

 "In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"

Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart.    I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income?   So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.

This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics.  "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population."  The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country.  That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the  country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities.  Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage.  My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study  circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

Wow!  That is an amazing statistic!  Just shows how these wealth numbers are manipulated.   So in fact,  I personally,  Bob W. have more wealth than 33% of the rest of the people in the country combined.  Amazing.  I also have more wealth than 80% of Doctors who have graduated in the last 5 years.

According to Hillary I have an enormous amount or more wealth that when she and Bill left office.   

[Glenstache]

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for

A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included

Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:

The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

And he was a Republican, no less. I wonder if he would still fit that affiliation if alive today?

[Jack]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.

No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.

The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.



But as the city and suburbs get bigger and traffic gets worse, jobs move out to the suburbs too -- and that's a disaster: instead of having everybody commute to A, you have people commuting from B to C or from C to D or any permutation of locations, and to get them there in any reasonable time at all means you have to build lots more roads in a topology that looks more like a mesh.



Because of this principle, there will be a point where we simply can't afford to expand the number of suburbs and will have to accommodate increasing population (assuming population continues to increase, which is not as certain as it used to be) by increasing density of the existing urban areas and switching to more efficient (i.e., cheaper per person, assuming full utilization) things like rail transit.

Not to mention, all of this stuff has to be maintained, and as the size of the road network increases, so does the ratio of "existing" roads to "new" roads. It's no surprise that at some point maintenance of the existing network approaches 100% of the budget (or exceeds it, if you've planned poorly by deferring maintenance before); it's mathematically inevitable unless the budget is growing at a faster rate, and it's not. (Because it can't.)

[Bob W]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 
…

So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs.   I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year.   Any idea where that might come from?

The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one.  The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.

The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line.  I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:

Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

Then he is either really bad at math or straight out lying.  1 Trillion over 5 years is just 200 billion per year.  Which is barely enough to support  2-3 million jobs per year.  So he is off by a factor of at least 3.  (still better at math than most politicians)

I actually agree on the infrastructure need.   It is pretty simple really.  Bring all the mercenaries troops home and put that money to work employing them on construction projects.    They can start on those as soon as the war defense department figures out to defend our home borders. 

Really if this country wasn't so poorly run and run by special interests it would be a paradise.   Too bad our leadership politically beholden representatives have run us into the ground.

[Chris22]

I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages.  I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time.  It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how?  If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet.

Ok - well regarding mortgages they shouldn't change your net worth substantially - basically only the equity 'counts'. 

Yeah, I get that, and my point is that if you have someone who is 1 year into a mortgage with 21% equity in a home (DP + minimal payments), versus someone identical in every other respect except they're 15 years into a mortgage with, I dunno, 70% equity, they're going to have vastly different net worths.  But that doesn't necessarily mean anything needs to be done to fix the "problem".  One dude just hasn't had time to pay it down yet, and is statistically probably younger.  I think in order to discuss the overall level of wealth statistic, it probably makes sense to index it to age, or exclude everyone under 35, or something.  Saying we have a problem because lots of people just starting out in life have a zero or negative net worth isn't productive.  It's when you're 50 and your worth is negative you have a problem.

And for student loans, well I do think that's important.  If you have $80k in student loans that's going to have a big effect on you for years to come.  I'm not saying it's not the borrower's responsibility for taking out those loans int he first place, but it's all part of the equation showing how big a gap there is.

But again, it's not all created equal.  I'd rather have $80k of student loans on an accounting or engineering degree than $50k with an English or Literature degree. 

These statistics are likely accurate, but based on the reasons above, I'd be wary of making any policy changes that "fix" a wealth disparity that's really more of an "age" disparity or "stage of life" disparity.

[Bob W]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.

No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.

The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.



But as the city and suburbs get bigger and traffic gets worse, jobs move out to the suburbs too -- and that's a disaster: instead of having everybody commute to A, you have people commuting from B to C or from C to D or any permutation of locations, and to get them there in any reasonable time at all means you have to build lots more roads in a topology that looks more like a mesh.



Because of this principle, there will be a point where we simply can't afford to expand the number of suburbs and will have to accommodate increasing population (assuming population continues to increase, which is not as certain as it used to be) by increasing density of the existing urban areas and switching to more efficient (i.e., cheaper per person, assuming full utilization) things like rail transit.

Not to mention, all of this stuff has to be maintained, and as the size of the road network increases, so does the ratio of "existing" roads to "new" roads. It's no surprise that at some point maintenance of the existing network approaches 100% of the budget (or exceeds it, if you've planned poorly by deferring maintenance before); it's mathematically inevitable unless the budget is growing at a faster rate, and it's not. (Because it can't.)

I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread.   It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%?   Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge.  That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet?   Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business?  That is so 2005.

Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?

[regulator]

That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet?   Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business?  That is so 2005.

This is something that maddens me.  Much of the last 5 to 10 years of my career involved work that I absolutely did not need to be physically present in an office to accomplish.  As a matter of fact, I would have been noticeably more productive telecommuting.  Guess how many days were allowed as remote work during my last several full time, permanent jobs?  Zero.  I think this has a lot to do with office culture and management's silly attempts to assert control.  Good luck changing it.

[Gin1984]

Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother.  If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)

I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester.  Can you clarify?

He signed a bill moving the right to an abortion from 25 weeks to 20.  Which harms not those who do not want an child and use it as birth control, but those who want a child and the twenty week scans shows deformities.  Now, no time to get to a clinic.  Add that with the closing of the clinics and you have a even bigger problem.

[beltim]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 
…

So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs.   I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year.   Any idea where that might come from?

The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one.  The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.

The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line.  I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:

Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

Then he is either really bad at math or straight out lying.  1 Trillion over 5 years is just 200 billion per year.  Which is barely enough to support  2-3 million jobs per year.  So he is off by a factor of at least 3.  (still better at math than most politicians)

I actually agree on the infrastructure need.   It is pretty simple really.  Bring all the mercenaries troops home and put that money to work employing them on construction projects.    They can start on those as soon as the war defense department figures out to defend our home borders. 

Really if this country wasn't so poorly run and run by special interests it would be a paradise.   Too bad our leadership politically beholden representatives have run us into the ground.

He's not saying that the process of expanding/updating infrastructure will employ that many people - you don't need 13 million employees to help expand the infrastructure.  He's saying that having that better infrastructure will result in 13 million new jobs.

* I'm not saying that he's right, I'm just making sure that you understand what he's saying.

[beltim]

Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother.  If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)

I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester.  Can you clarify?

He signed a bill moving the right to an abortion from 25 weeks to 20.  Which harms not those who do not want an child and use it as birth control, but those who want a child and the twenty week scans shows deformities.  Now, no time to get to a clinic.  Add that with the closing of the clinics and you have a even bigger problem.

Oh, I see what you're saying.  I didn't get what you meant by "in cases of damage to the fetus" in your first post.  Thanks for clarifying.

[MoonShadow]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?

Oh, a crapload!  I'm a member of two unions at the same time, and without a doubt, unions get 'special interest' access to Democrats.  This is self evident.

[Jack]

I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread.   It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%?   Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge.  That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet?   Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business?  That is so 2005.

Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?

Uber and even self-driving cars are only a small improvement over plain old taxi service. In fact, such things would tend to cause an overall increase in traffic: when a person uses his own car, the car takes the same number of trips as the person. When the person uses uber, the car takes all those same trips plus the driving between paid fares.

A shared ride service can reduce that, but then the proper comparison is between it and a bus.

[MoonShadow]

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for

A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included

Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:

The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

And he was a Republican, no less. I wonder if he would still fit that affiliation if alive today?

Not likely.  Teddy was a true progressive of his day, meaning he was in favor of the Fabian style of fascism.  We don't call it that anymore though, today we just call it "progressive".

[MoonShadow]

I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread.   It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%?   Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge.  That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet?   Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business?  That is so 2005.

Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?

Uber and even self-driving cars are only a small improvement over plain old taxi service. In fact, such things would tend to cause an overall increase in traffic: when a person uses his own car, the car takes the same number of trips as the person. When the person uses uber, the car takes all those same trips plus the driving between paid fares.

Well, yes and no.  Because both Uber/Lyft and any self-driving cars all use real-time routing algorithums to make certain the total fleet is as efficient as possible, which in this context means the highest fare miles to non-fare miles ratio.  This would have the obvious effect of reducing redunant traffic miles.  Also, these kinds of systems don't impose much of anything upon urban parking.

[MoonShadow]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels.  Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.

Yes, I'm saying this.  It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.

No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.

The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.

Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves.  Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel.  The problem that you cite is already self-correcting.  A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.

[zoltani]

Yes, a transportation "mesh" or spider web is the best, and many cities do just that with public transpo, even sprawled ones.

[soccerluvof4]

Enough of the Clintons, Enough of the Bush's and thank God no more Obamas. I will cheer for Trump if nothing more to expose both sides and get the status quo scare enough to get some real change and perhaps start a real third party.....subject to change as this is all really premature.

[forummm]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

I love it!  An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!

So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?

[forummm]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?

Oh, a crapload!  I'm a member of two unions at the same time, and without a doubt, unions get 'special interest' access to Democrats.  This is self evident.

This is true. Unions have been disproportionately supporting Democrats for a long time. That disproportionate support has increased to near universal support as the Republicans have been trying to get rid of or kneecap or otherwise disable unions for decades. So naturally they favor Democrats. And naturally Republicans try to defang unions even more. For various reasons, including decline in manufacturing jobs and successful Republican opposition to unionization, enrollment in unions has declined by something like 70% I think.

[forummm]

and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case.  That is not moderate. 

Reading up on this, I completely agree that the laws Kasich has approved have dramatically reduced access, in quite probably an unconstitutional way.  It's quite possible that this situation is even worse than described by your NARAL quote earlier, which is surprising to me.

I recall Kasich not being a moderate in the House. But he's been doing a good job of rebranding himself since he left Lehman Brothers and went back into politics.

[regulator]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

I love it!  An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!

So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?

Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?

In any case, your extremist is my moderate and vice versa.

[forummm]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?

No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.

I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.

This is classic. "All Democratic candidates are in thrall to radical leftist groups!!" "Like who?" "I'm not telling."

Yeah, I thought it was weird that there wasn't even one example provided. But there are also a lot of Democrats (like Obama) who want to increase the strength of SS and other safety net programs (they may just have a different solution than regulator prefers) and also Democrats who signed on to the corporate tax repatriation holiday that Bush signed (but it turned out that the companies just passed the cash to executives and shareholders and didn't actually do reinvestment or increase jobs like they promised--and in fact some like Campbells had huge layoffs, so I can understand why some would be hesitant to provide another huge windfall for industry when there were none of the promised results from the last round). And Obama cut taxes dramatically for the lower income and middle class, while letting just the top bracket revert to the Clinton levels.

[forummm]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

I love it!  An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!

So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?

Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?

That's not logically consistent. Government leaders frequently do things that the majority of their constituents oppose. And something that about half the people support isn't "extreme".

[regulator]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
 
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."

Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.

I love it!  An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!

So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?

Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?

That's not logically consistent. Government leaders frequently do things that the majority of their constituents oppose. And something that about half the people support isn't "extreme".

Difference of opinion makes a market.  Neither of us is buying what the other person is selling, it would seem.

As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing.  I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over.  I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one.  If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception.  In politics, perception is reality.

[MoonShadow]

Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.

A semi-rhetorical answer.  Because one definition of a libertarian is someone who is generally fiscally conservative but also socially liberal, which used to be called a classical liberal.

[Cressida]

As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing.  I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over.  I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one.  If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception.  In politics, perception is reality.

Because you would lose. If you could actually think of any extreme leftist groups that Democratic candidates are *in actual reality* beholden to, seems like you would have listed them. So it's clear that you can't.

The point is, people trot out this false equivalence BS. If someone truly believes both parties are equally evil and crazy, fine, I can't stop you. But it's the right wing that's become extreme. Not the left. regulator *wants* it to be the left that's extreme, and he *still* can't come up with any evidence that that's the case. I think that's telling.

[regulator]

As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing.  I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over.  I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one.  If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception.  In politics, perception is reality.

Because you would lose. If you could actually think of any extreme leftist groups that Democratic candidates are *in actual reality* beholden to, seems like you would have listed them. So it's clear that you can't.

The point is, people trot out this false equivalence BS. If someone truly believes both parties are equally evil and crazy, fine, I can't stop you. But it's the right wing that's become extreme. Not the left. regulator *wants* it to be the left that's extreme, and he *still* can't come up with any evidence that that's the case. I think that's telling.

Not so much.  I just don't particularly care to be attacked by the usual suspects.  As I imagine you already know, I think that all major politicians are shitbags that should pretty much serve out their terms in jail.

[GuitarStv]

That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet?   Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business?  That is so 2005.

This is something that maddens me.  Much of the last 5 to 10 years of my career involved work that I absolutely did not need to be physically present in an office to accomplish.  As a matter of fact, I would have been noticeably more productive telecommuting.  Guess how many days were allowed as remote work during my last several full time, permanent jobs?  Zero.  I think this has a lot to do with office culture and management's silly attempts to assert control.  Good luck changing it.

YES!

I work as an engineer designing systems and programming software.  I physically need to be at a building for face to face meetings maybe one day a week.  There is no reason of any kind for me to be physically at the building 80% of the time.  Management allows occasional work from home (to a maximum of one day per week), but the process you have to go through to actually do it is so onerous that in our company of two thousand I'd be surprised if three people regularly work from home.  This is stupid, and entirely a corporate culture thing.  I've had three jobs where the working from home thing was pretty much the same now, so it appears to be the norm.

[Jack]

Exactly.  There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure.  The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.

You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.

Yes, I'm saying this.  It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.

How do you propose to reduce graft in the procurement process with smaller government? It'd be great if it could be done, but I don't think it can be done. Smaller government is only more efficient if all the people running it can be trusted, but they can't. If you make it too small, there aren't enough checks and balances to prevent graft.

No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.

The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.

Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves.  Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel.  The problem that you cite is already self-correcting.  A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.

Of course we can control urban sprawl; we built it on purpose in the first place! Sprawl was designed by the urban planners of the '50s and '60s based on the ideas of people like Le Corbusier (who thought commuting by automobile was fucking wonderful), single-use zoning, and low-density zoning (which, in large part, was a racially-motivated response to desegregation: if you can't stop black people from moving into the white neighborhood by law, you can do it by making the white neighborhood have large, unaffordable lots). Back then, a lot of people thought car-centric development, bulldozing urban neighborhoods to build freeways (also racially-motivated, by the way), malls and business parks, etc. were actually good ideas and that mode of development was not just encouraged but enforced by urban planners themselves, via zoning.

Sprawl isn't just caused by economic forces; it's caused by the confluence of economic forces and bad government policy. It could have been (at least partially) prevented by good government policy.

Even to this day the zoning code in a lot of places is based on outdated '50s ideas. For example, my neighborhood, which was built before the '50s, has severe issues getting new in-fill development that works properly because the zoning code insists on things like deep setbacks from the street and excessively-large amounts of required parking. In fact, my neighborhood is conducting a survey of the business district right now counting the business square-footage and the number of parking spaces, and we suspect that the results will prove that it is literally impossible for new businesses to get operating permits because of minimum parking requirements.

[Jack]

Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.

<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!

A Republican Unicorn--social libertarian, an actual social libertarian, prochoice everything from drugs to abortion to guns to gays, and who is a moderate fiscal conservative, I'd give money to him/her just to try to save the poor thing from extinction. I actually have some friends like this, maybe I should encourage them to run for office.

Yes, you should!

Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.

Because the taxonomy is not well-formed (or at least, most people use it incorrectly). The liberal equivalent of a libertarian is more or less the Green Party, but everybody forgets they exist. A lot of people don't know that a big part of their ideology is "grassroots democracy" (a.k.a. anti-Federalism, a.k.a. States' Rights, a.k.a. small [Federal] government, etc.), for example. Libertarians and Greens would realize they have a lot in common if they would just try to stop shoehorning themselves into opposite ends of a grossly-inaccurate single-dimension political spectrum. The only real sticking point is their differing opinions on how to solve the tragedy of the commons (Greens favor regulation; Libertarians favor privatization).