Daniel Andrews I actually misspoke; the multiplier I was referring to came from the CBO not the OMB. While you do raise valid points about the costs of collecting and distributing UI benefits MY point is that an unemployed person when given $$ will immediately spend that money. Most of which will be spent in the local economy. Thus your statement of not creating anything of value is not really correct. It is creating the need for jobs in the local economy. We can never have too many Walmart greeters! Giving a "job creator" a tax break doesn't do a thing to create economic activity as that tax break will be used in rent seeking not creating economic activity.
Daniel Andrews I think it will eventually come out that those IRS employees were just trying to pick low hanging fruit. Those organizations that were under scrutiny were applying for tax exempt status that PRECLUDED them from using a significant amount of their resources trying to influence elections. That part of the tax code is very poorly written (maybe deliberately?) but the intent of the tax exemption is so those that do qualify can spend more money on helping those in need-not winning elections.
Daniel Andrews The OMB is not creditable? And you obviously have no clue about how far unemployment insurance goes; "Paying someone not to work"? You are obviously way smarter and more articulate than me so You Win.
Daniel Andrews I disagree with just about everything you have said John. But to answer your question about gov't spending I will point to the obvious period during WWII. FDR's mistake was listening to the bankers and putting the brakes on spending too early. According to the OMB unemployment insurance payments result in $1.40 of economic activity for every $1 spent. If you think about who is getting the money and what those people are doing with it this makes sense. Just ask the Brits how that austerity thing is working out for'em...
Daniel Andrews Gov't spending and the deficit has been decreasing as a % of GDP since 2009. Gov't employment has also been dropping over that time period. Now I am not saying that is good but it is a fact. The spending problem we face right now is that we aren't spending enough. We need short term spending to stimulate the economy. Cutting can wait until we get to 4-5% unemployment. Paul Ryan? His 12 page "plan" is a crock. Typical conservative obfuscation that will only turn the page back to the 19th century.
Daniel Andrews I agree with your last point. I would like to go back to the FISA court-even though wire taps were almost always approved. I have read both versions of the talking points as well as the rational behind the changes. They make sense to me and in fact seemed very reasonable. Unfortunately the right is scrambling to do ANYTHIING to derail the coming Clinton nomination. I am sure we will be hearing more about the death of Vince Foster in the next presidential campaign. I think there is a lot of work to do to improve the democratic party and this presidency. But at least we show the ability to compromise something the current crop on the other side does not understand. Compromise is the only way to govern in a democracy.
Daniel Andrews I would mic your comment Amy-IF it included the last 2 administrations. In fact if you took all the Goldman Sachs employees out of the Treasury Dept and Fed there would be...crickets. Shhhh.
Daniel Andrews Last Sunday a former Defense Secretary called the notion of a military response "cartoonish". An F16 flyby would have done nothing and thinking otherwise is absurd. Furthermore the republicans in the house CUT security funding for our overseas diplomatic missions and were warned by Secretary Clinton that this was dangerous. The "WHITEHOUSE" had nothing to do with removing references as you assert; that was done by a Bush appointee-proving once again that when you believe government is incompetent then you govern incompetently. But the scandal train has already left the station. Next stop? Why Impeachment Junction of course. Right after that the party of the 99% will retake the house. Thank you Mr. Issa!
Daniel Andrews Let's see...Benghazi...a tempest in a teapot. There was no cover up of anything. Just some editing of talking points by a republican who was a former aid to dick Cheney. The IRS targeting some groups because of their names? Quite wrong but also done under the purview of a republican. Collecting phone records of AP reporters? Also reprehensible. Also legal. Welcome to the security information complex. Law enforcement can enter your home if you happen to flush your toilet when they knock at your door. This is what right wing fear mongering does. Remember 9/11 changed everything.
Daniel Andrews While I could mention looking at which administrations ran budget deficits vs. surpluses over the last 50 years I will instead point to the last Bush administration. When we are sending PALLETS of $100 bills to Iraq and seeing BILLIONS disappear I contend that most of this fell into connected and corrupt individuals who if not rich then became rich do to republican chicanery. All of this was done with NO oversight. During the Bush administration we saw the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich this country has ever seen.
Daniel Andrews I believe passing marriage equality legislation will overall improve the national dialogue. It will raise awareness and make it easier to discuss other issues. Don't forget the "it gets better" campaign.
Daniel Andrews Wait, lowering interest rates (and thus the cost of repaying student loans) will drive up costs of higher edumacation? But what if I can't borrow money from my parants as Mitt Rmoney suggested? Your premise is flawed. Your idea that more people attending college will drive up costs because...economics! is wrong. There may be a lot wrong with higher education in this country but making college more affordable is not one of them.
Daniel Andrews You are asserting two different things there Jason; that a political donation does in fact buy influence. Now I am not saying that that donations do NOT buy influence but you just cannot assume that they do. Many elected officials hate having to spend so much time fundraising and I do think money is a corrupting influence in our political system. That is why I am in favor of publicly funded elections that feature shorter campaigns. But since the Roberts court has equated $$ with free speech we have our current very bad system. I disagree with you that both sides do their fair share of destruction of the middle class. Just as corporate donations far outpace union donations the republicans far surpass any democrats in serving the rich
Daniel Andrews I disagree with your assertion that unions and lobbyists are corrupt. Furthermore the fact that you think unions have outlived their need because of "enforced regulation" being the "rule of the day" demonstrates a lack of awareness of the 40 year assault on the middle class by the right.
Daniel Andrews "complicit lawmakers"? Hard to have a discussion when one side wants to color their comments with negative terms. But... We need unions for the same reason we need a free press; to counterbalance those forces that would otherwise wreak havoc on America and the world. Corporate Americans (sadly no pun intended) have lots of money while unions have lots of votes. Unions exist to improve the lot of their members and as a side effect they benefit the middle class who are taxpayers. I disagree with the premise that more powerful unions result in more taxpayer expense.
Daniel Andrews Your first sentence was complete drivel so I skipped most of the rest of your screed. But I will say this; Rahm Emanuel is the worst kind of democrat there is-a corporate shill who was terrible in the white house.
Daniel Andrews The republicans may as well nominate Santorum. It will be very difficult for them to beat President Clinton and Senator Clinton in 2016 or 2020. Actually the way things are going now the republicans will have to do a much better job at "counting the votes" and suppressing brown people's votes to win the White House.
Daniel Andrews Look , half the current prisoners at Gitmo have already been cleared for release. The U.S. Gov't claims there is no place to release them. There are dozens of the same type prisoners currently in federal prisons IN THE U.S. None have escaped thus far. In fact the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, MN has all 6 levels of prisoners. The reason Gitmo is still open is because Obama has tried closing it and the reactionary republicans in Washington won't do anything that is seen as conciliatory with the president. It is politics not policy keeping this place open. They have no clue the stain this facility puts on the U.S at home and abroad.
Daniel Andrews Wait, you passed TWO legal examinations (congratulations BTW) yet see no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety with a Justice's spouse getting paid $160,000 (almost as much as the Justice is paid) by a group that has an interest in a case that is presented to said Justice? If that is the case then we have no further need to discuss this as we are poles apart because to me that at least appears inappropriate.