Slashdot Mirror

> statistics say one of the hired ten will be of the minority.

Reality says otherwise. And that doesn't even address the problem of getting in the door.

> If you perform tests and pick 10 best candidates,

Find a test that meaningfully correlates with quality of code. Google tried, they couldn't. Your fantasy scenario depends on something that does not exist. For someone who isn't an ideologue that ought to cause a revaluation of perspective.

The fact that nobody went to jail for US waterboarding is disturbing.

The US had used allegations of waterboarding against Japanese decision makers in the post WWII war-crimes trials to sentence them. Although, it should be noted that it was typically one of multiple torture allegations.

http://www.politifact.com/virg...

We are filthy hypocrites. Somebody(s) should be locked up a good long time.

First, let me be clear. This is not 47% of the entire population, it is 47% of the working population, a key point.

---

In 2013, it was 43.3% according to this web site:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

And I suppose it depends on if you count FICA taxes or not. Since those go to three specific programs, I personally don't count them (SS is your own savings, Medicare is your health care, and unemployment is for you if you need it), but you might choose to do so.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

In 2009, it was indeed 47%, but of course that was a bad year.

---

It is worth noting who DOES pay the taxes around here:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/04...

The top 1% pays on average 19% of their income in taxes and pays 37% of all federal income taxes.

Interestingly enough, it is the top 10-25% who pays the lowest percentage of taxes, 11%, followed by the bottom 50%, at 12% of their income. But that 12% pays only 2% of the federal taxes.

So the bottom 50% of the entire working population is paying only 2%. Frankly, they should shut up about taxes, they have only one way to go for them, which is up. But the bottom 50% tends to be uneducated, ignorant about such things, and low information voters who listen to soundbites.

You're both right, but you managed to shift the goalposts with an incredibly misleading statement.

What is true is that the population of women, on average, makes 80% of what the population of men makes. The reason this is INCREDIBLY misleading is it does not look at "pay for equal work"; it utterly disregards what industries men and women respectively tend to be in and just assumes that all women are in the same industries as all men and thus that 80% figure is indicating sexism.

This 80% number is so notorious that it has been widely slammed, by such publications as Politifact, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Slate. That is, its SUCH a misleading statement that it is derided by publications ranging from neutral to liberal to conservative.

Indeed, The Washington Post notes,

June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.

They [economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ] noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity.

So yes: Technically, 77 cents on the dollar. That is, if you're attempting to push a political agenda by boiling down a really complex comparison to an inflated and highly controversial figure.

Never happened. Go away, dittohead.

Never happened. Go away, dittohead.

Never happened. Go away, dittohead.

Never happened. Go away.

Never happened. Go away, dittohead.

Never happened. Go away.

Then when NASA said their mission was muslim outreach, that was totally normal.

Never happened. Go away.

...the HEAD of NASA says that the single most important thing he has been tasked to do is muslim outreach...

Never happened. Go away.

Again.
We've covered this stuff before.
We keep covering it.
You keep not getting it.

http://www.politifact.com/pund...
http://www.politifact.com/texa...

"Scientists who are big democrat supporters" ..
That's just BS. It's called Civil Service.
There are no purgings of the civil service based on ideology.

And again you operate under the assumption that independent agencies are micromanaged by the administration. You still don't comprehend what independent agencies are or how they operate, even though you yourself mentioned exactly how its done: "by protecting certain institutions from being used this way" ... by creating them as independent agencies. they aren't part of the administration and they aren't part of the congress. They are a melding of both, largely free from either as long as they operate within their mandate or charter.

Your ignorance is repetitive and borin

Again.
We've covered this stuff before.
We keep covering it.
You keep not getting it.

http://www.politifact.com/pund...
http://www.politifact.com/texa...

"Scientists who are big democrat supporters" ..
That's just BS. It's called Civil Service.
There are no purgings of the civil service based on ideology.

And again you operate under the assumption that independent agencies are micromanaged by the administration. You still don't comprehend what independent agencies are or how they operate, even though you yourself mentioned exactly how its done: "by protecting certain institutions from being used this way" ... by creating them as independent agencies. they aren't part of the administration and they aren't part of the congress. They are a melding of both, largely free from either as long as they operate within their mandate or charter.

Your ignorance is repetitive and borin

http://www.politifact.com/rhod...

The actual price for the power would be 30 cents/ KWHR.

As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?

Because he didn't feel he was going to get fair treatment from the government. It's the same reason why a multitude of whistleblowers flee their parent country for fear of retaliation.

IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

Riiight. Because the government never plays dirty against whistleblowers, right? Oh wait... Obama is one of the worst presidents when it comes to trying to attack whistleblowers.

Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

Said by a big, brave keyboard warrior. Get back to us when you actually face a similar situation to the one Snowden is in.

Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.

But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?

What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?

It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.

So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?

Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?

If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?

the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.

Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed.

Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.

In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?

So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?

Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both

It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).

Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of?

Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...

Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans?

I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.

Reps killed their own chances in 2008.

Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Blue states generate the revenue and the red states live off of that welfare.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Of this there can be no argument. It is established fact.

So you will have no problem proving your claim ?

Well, Fox News said so!.

And Sean Hannity says so too!.

Because we all know that Fox News and AM Talk radio entertainers never lie!

Of course, you completely ignore that a promise was made: "Let me be CLEAR: If you like your doctor, you can keep them." And not only that, Obama knew this was not the case prior to making the statement, so he purposely lied to get people to support it. Then after that, he lied about the lie.

Did Obama call you up and tell you that you couldn't see your doctor anymore? What, exactly, are you raging about? If you are talking about your doctor not accepting your health insurance plan (anymore), well that is between your doctor and the insurance company -- not Obama.

Nothing you posted refutes anything at all.

And surprise, surprise I still have the same doctor & (a better) health plan, but my fiance w/ an expensive sleep disorder was actually able to get insurance.

Congratulations, I'm glad it worked out for you. For many others, not so much. Of course, you completely ignore that a promise was made: "Let me be CLEAR: If you like your doctor, you can keep them." And not only that, Obama knew this was not the case prior to making the statement, so he purposely lied to get people to support it. Then after that, he lied about the lie.

Even though SM doesn't give an explicit example related to the issue, this administration has a very long track record of saying they're going to do one thing, and then doing something else. That's not F.U.D. Stay classy, Jaysyn!

From what I have read, it is because congress sent him so few bills. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

An example "make it so" mis-step Obama made was when a speech writer told him to say "if you want to keep your insurance plan, you can" and he did exactly that.

A "misstep" made 37 times.

MSNBC doesnt really cover it up.
It's pretty well known it's a channel meant to pander to the left because the conservative who owns it knows there a market there.
But even so, its really more a moderate channel. a Truly liberal channel wouldn't have Joe Scarbourough and wouldn't hold out Eisenhower as the prime example of where its political sensibilities lie.

Fox: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 11
Mostly True 11
Half True 18
Mostly False 20
False 31
Pants on Fire 9

TOTAL:
Sample size: 127 claims
True - 33.25%
False - 66.75% ... Across the entire network, a full 2/3's of what they say is untrue.

NBC/MSNBC: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 10
Mostly True 24
Half True 22
Mostly False 22
False 18
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 122 claims
True - 44.5%
False - 55.5% ... The NBC's have fallen too.

CNN: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 18
Mostly True 39
Half True 21
Mostly False 7
False 11
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 56 claims
True - 59.5%
False - 40.5%
Sample size is only half the others though.

MSNBC doesnt really cover it up.
It's pretty well known it's a channel meant to pander to the left because the conservative who owns it knows there a market there.
But even so, its really more a moderate channel. a Truly liberal channel wouldn't have Joe Scarbourough and wouldn't hold out Eisenhower as the prime example of where its political sensibilities lie.

Fox: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 11
Mostly True 11
Half True 18
Mostly False 20
False 31
Pants on Fire 9

TOTAL:
Sample size: 127 claims
True - 33.25%
False - 66.75% ... Across the entire network, a full 2/3's of what they say is untrue.

NBC/MSNBC: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 10
Mostly True 24
Half True 22
Mostly False 22
False 18
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 122 claims
True - 44.5%
False - 55.5% ... The NBC's have fallen too.

CNN: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 18
Mostly True 39
Half True 21
Mostly False 7
False 11
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 56 claims
True - 59.5%
False - 40.5%
Sample size is only half the others though.

MSNBC doesnt really cover it up.
It's pretty well known it's a channel meant to pander to the left because the conservative who owns it knows there a market there.
But even so, its really more a moderate channel. a Truly liberal channel wouldn't have Joe Scarbourough and wouldn't hold out Eisenhower as the prime example of where its political sensibilities lie.

Fox: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 11
Mostly True 11
Half True 18
Mostly False 20
False 31
Pants on Fire 9

TOTAL:
Sample size: 127 claims
True - 33.25%
False - 66.75% ... Across the entire network, a full 2/3's of what they say is untrue.

NBC/MSNBC: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 10
Mostly True 24
Half True 22
Mostly False 22
False 18
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 122 claims
True - 44.5%
False - 55.5% ... The NBC's have fallen too.

CNN: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 18
Mostly True 39
Half True 21
Mostly False 7
False 11
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 56 claims
True - 59.5%
False - 40.5%
Sample size is only half the others though.

And Fox doesn't ? I present to you the News media scorecards:
http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent.
At CNN, it’s 18 percent.

You may wish to reconsider who actually is having a harder time with reality. (Though my theory is CNN's number is so good because they have people like Don Lemon who essentially only say things so bad they aren't even wrong....like the black holes and aliens comments about the missing airliner). After all, MSNBC doesn't have 5 different websites able to generate an entire day's content just off correcting the things they got wrong that day.

So anyway.
Our only problem with reality, is sometimes its depressing.
But at least we still live in it, unlike the majority Fox and its viewership.
(and actually I don't watch MSNBC (dont have cable) so your entire point is a misfire)

You're going to have to submit a citation on this. I have already submitted citations on my part,

This isn't WIkipedia. What you have cited are partisan comments by people with an axe to grind, plus misreading (by you) of other quotes. But here is what the IRS says on the topic.

Residency Test


Your child must have lived with you, or your spouse if you file a joint return, in the United States for more than half of the year.

And for the proposition (I assume yours) that an ITIN is sufficient: No it isn't:

Yes. The taxpayer, the spouse (if filing jointly) and any qualifying child listed on Schedule EIC must have valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) valid for employment and issued by the Social Security Administration. You cannot claim EITC using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Adoption Taxpayer Identification Number (ATIN) issued by IRS.

Rand Paul, who you gleefully quote, was talking about fraud and his numbers are grossly exaggerated

So you are wrong about your central claim (that the amnestied aliens will be able to lawfully claim EITC for non-resident children) and wrong on the size of the problem -- even looking at fraud.

So now it's time for some ad hominem. Rand Paul is not a reliable source of information -- just look at what he recently said about vaccines. I am going to make the unsupported claim that non-resident children of amnestied aliens cannot legally get SSNs. Whatever the truth is on SSNs, it's not legal for them to claim EITC for non-resident children. You haven't provided a reliable citation for your position, while I have provided one for my position.

Go back to your tea party meeting. It's people like you who are driving the increasing disparity of wealth in this country and the stagnation of incomes for anyone except the top 0.1%.

It's clear that your comprehension skills are poor, so I should probably not expect you to understand what is really going on.

> Liberals aren't the ones adamantly chanting "No more taxes" as part of their rallies.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” - Barack "Hussein" Obama

A pledge he has, of course, broken:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Yes, as that site says, "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy", even if you make $250k or under. At last we see the famed conservative compassion at work. I admit to having my doubts about it, when all the usual parrots began parroting about how the ACLA was too expensive just to help ten million or so people who couldn't afford health insurance. But now I see I misjudged you all.

> Liberals aren't the ones adamantly chanting "No more taxes" as part of their rallies.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” - Barack "Hussein" Obama

A pledge he has, of course, broken:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

you've obviously never taken any time to research and come up with an original thought, let alone research anything to substantiate the trash you repeat from far right-wing nutbags

It's OK honey. Calm down or you'll blow a gasket. Let's pick one claim and substantiate it, shall we? In my post (on which you heaped such opprobrium), I claimed that Obama previously said he would lack legal authority to change immigration law on his own as president. Here's a source that doesn't fit the category of "right-wing nutbags" that claims the same, with quotes and links:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/dec/05/michael-mccaul/michael-mccaul-says-obama-said-over-20-times-he-la/

Note that this fact checker is disagreeing with a conservative count that Obama said this 20 times, and points out that only about 15 of them are solid examples. At any rate, it's not a one-off misunderstanding or misstatement, it's a solidly documented example of the president's lack of integrity. Wouldn't you agree, O Coward Without Cognomen?

This is said repeatedly, and yet the previous administration, with a Republican house and senate, never advanced a bill for it

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B...

No, the previous administration didn't introduce the bill. It was introduced back in 1993 by a group of about 20 Republican sponsors. It didn't get enough traction to go anywhere.

There are a lot of similarities between the ACA and HEART, but there are differences too.

http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Half-truths and misrepresentations drummed up by faux news, but that does get the 'base' out (i.e. nitwits)
http://www.politifact.com/texa...

If you can find a politician saying costs would actually be reduced in toto I'll be stunned. They argued people like my Mom would see reduced costs, due to the Individual Mandate, guaranteed issue, and subsidies.

President Obama stated in 2009:

"We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care," Obama said. "Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future. This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program. And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

"Now, I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here. You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill."

From the same article:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the report "shows that health reform will ensure both the federal government and the American people spend less on health care than if this bill doesn't pass, helping get a hold of America's debt and keep more money in people's pockets. This report is yet another clear indicator that we have to act - and act now."

Moving on:

As for the free market, all free markets encourage short-term decision-making.

Markets also encourage long term decision making for the same reasons. Instead, you should be asking what incentivizes short term decision making at the expense of long term decision making. The answer is "private profit, public risk". There's a host of government policies and activities that take away the costs of making bad private decisions. Similarly, there are a bunch of people and businesses who don't have to use their own money for gain.

All the risk-mitigation system does is ensure her insurance company does;t go bankrupt.

Until they have to drop the risk-mitigation system because it's not working and/or they can't pay for it. Then plenty of insurance companies will go bankrupt.

As for the sustainability, you have yet to mention a single problem with Obamacare sustainability that isn't present in numerous other countries.

You do realize that health care costs are climbing much faster than inflation in every developed world country? The problems with Obamacare are not unique to the US, they are merely further along the curve than the rest of the world.

If the Canadians can survive since the Great Doctor's Strike of '62 it's fairly silly to argue Obamacare is doomed.

Why? Obamacare has perverse dynamics that encourage people, insurers, doctors, and regulators to do all sorts of dumb things.

And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer -- America where the Walton family (majority shareholders in Walmart) has wealth equal to the wealth of the bottom 42% of Americans combined.

Like Voter ID requirements?

Yes.

That turnout among black people went up in 2012 isn't that surprising. They were voting for a black president (who was the victim of many race based attacks) and voter ID were big news so people were motivated to come out in response.

And besides, it doesn't matter to my point whether it was effective electioneering, the fact that voter ID requirements are intended to boost Republican prospects by reducing minority voting makes them an egregious form of electioneering.

Like Voter ID requirements?

So, back to Cabrini Green? I'd also like to know where you get your numbers from.

How about a fact-check of a statement by theHUD secretary?

I had to look up Cabrini Green, and have to say 'not really'. The individual housing areas would be much smaller in number. The housing project you mentioned was originally aimed at low-income people, not the outright homeless.

Half the sentence? Okay. Less likely to come back? You can't guarantee something like that.

Put unstated 'on average' in there and you most certainly can. We've long passed the point of efficiency. Heck, compare our success rate with nordic countries and it shows that despite longer sentences we have worse outcomes, and that's after you control for crimes committed and everything else. Long prison sentences for stupid shit(like drug use) don't work, especially when the expense of the long sentence means that you end up not treating, rehabilitating, and training the prisoner.

If anything, I was being conservative about the benefits. Nordic countries manage to have 1/3rd the recidivism with 1/3rd the prison sentence(on average). Given how much we pay to incarcerate somebody for a year, how could this NOT be cheaper?

As for 'dumping recidivist offenders back on the street' - that's the POINT of making prison about reform - so they AREN'T nearly as likely to re-offend the moment they get back on the street. A 20% recidivism rate after 5 years of prison means LESS CRIME on the street than a 60% recidivism rate after 15.

Or did you NOT notice that the country's multi-TRILLION dollar debt load.

Ahem, original post: "help with the federal deficit". Besides that, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was ignoring our debt load when proposing 3 major policy changes all centered around saving money. Fortunately our deficit is down below $500B this year, which means that with only a minimum of extra belt tightening(see my proposals) to actually balance the thing. Then we can start paying off the debt.

Of course, attacking me as opposed to a strawman wouldn't let you do a good rant, now would it?

Oh. That's cute. Expecting the state governments to kick in money out of the goodness of their hearts.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I'll restate: The federal and state governments combined already spend more than enough on healthcare to cover everybody in the USA under a system that reduces healthcare costs in the USA to the median of developed nations. Indeed, since the Federal government alone could cover 90% of the bill with CURRENT spending, on average individual states would experience SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS.

Sorry, unless someone's pockets are being lined at every step of the way, don't expect it to EVER get done.

That's an excuse to do nothing about anything and you know it. We're not going to fix the problems we face doing nothing.

You're also expecting 100% participation, no recidivism, and nobody abusing the system.

...Boy, you don't know me at all.
100% participation - Why do I need this? 100% participation in what?
No recidivism - 'less likely to come back(to prison)' is certainly not 'No recidivism'. In the case of the reforms I'm looking at, it's more like reducing the current 60% return rate down to 20%.
Nobody abusing the system - Not writing a book, but I always figure on a certain level of abuse. That's what auditors and such are for, to keep that to a minimum.

After all, when your employer pays you terribly, why do you care? Reject the idea, customer complains to your manager. Who is also, may not be the brightest star in the constellation, who may discipline/fire you.

Also? Average wage at WalMart: $8/hr (weekly: 8*8=64 * 5 days=$320). Which means, pulling this once and reselling the console is almost a week's pay. Taking $300 from WalMart, whose family owns more money than the bottom 42% of the US combined to feed your family doesn't seem like the most heartless crime in the world.

A Republican by his actions and policies.

Oh, no you don't... You keep him. A Republican would not have withdrawn all troops from Iraq — allowing ISIS to bloom and necessitating a painful return.

A Republican would not have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine by lifting all sanctions imposed over a similar invasion into Georgia.

A Republican would've continued to detain terrorist suspects — in Guantanamo or elsewhere — rather then order extrajudicial killings — most infamously one of Osama bin Laden himself.

No, Obama is an Illiberal Democrat through and through. But such people — yourself included — are famous for inability to recognize each other — so far are their deeds from their proclaimed ideals.

On the Democratic side, the argument is that a healthy nation is a better nation, and it is worth a very significant cost to achieve that. Argue that it isn't.

It is very easy to argue, actually. By demonstrating, what "healthy nation" means in the Democratic speak. It is not, where fewer people are sick — it is one, where everyone has health-insurance. Now, that I've rephrased their point closer to reality: "A nation, where everybody has a health-insurance is a better nation," — it is slightly less unassailable.

But they don't mean even that. As Obama and his kept saying, if he had a choice, he'd have a single-payer health-system — and that is very easy to attack. Especially for people like myself, who grew-up in such a "worker's paradise"...

And the more cynical among us (and you can't be too cynical discussing the government's intentions) would argue, that Obamacare was designed to fail to make the single-payer system more palatable to the tired electorate.

Here you go!

But Obama wouldn't do that! He promised!

Just some extra food for thought from wikipedia:

In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that Wheeler's FCC would consider promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content — whose owners paid fees to the ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) — and harder to access other content,[11] thus undermining the traditional open architecture of the Internet. [...snip...] As of May 15, 2014, the fast lane bill passed voting with a 3/2 vote. It will now be open to public discussion that ends July 2014.

Politifact rates a similar statement by Rep. Lynn Jenkins as "Half True."

Jenkins said that in the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

In some cases, committee chairs -- not Reid -- may be blocking or moving slowly on these bills. In other cases, senators are working on their own alternative bills on the same topic. Meanwhile, the claim oversells the degree of bipartisanship in the House; a majority of the Democratic-sponsored bills she cites are relatively minor pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, Jenkins places all the blame on the Democrats and the Senate, but experts agree that it takes two to tango. Both parties and chambers have played a role in creating the current legislative dysfunction. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

The U.S. House passed seven of the 12 annual appropriations bills this year and sent them to the Senate for consideration, according to the status report by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved 11 of the 12 spending bills and sent them to the full Senate for consideration. An independent search by PolitiFact via the Library of Congress’ Thomas bill-tracking web site confirmed the figures cited in the GOP report. But none of the bills approved by the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee were ever brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who decides which bills will be considered, told reporters on July 10, 2012, that no spending bills were likely to be approved this year because of an ongoing dispute with House Republicans over how much the federal government should spend.

http://www.politifact.com/tenn...

but yes, lets blame the republicans in congress for harry reid not bringing votes to the floor in the senate....

You can dismiss the study as bullshit, but can you explain away things like Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks after Sandy Hook, yet the NRA has overridden the public will on the issue?

I'm sure you can craft another thoughtful argument. You've looked at it in detail and everything!

1.4M employees, check.
$16B is for all of walmart, not just the Walton's stock. They own around half.

$8.81 moving to $100/hour almost makes the $8 insignificant, but I'll use $91.19 anyways.

1/3rd are part time.

Using 1.4M employees, that's roughly 1,867M full time hours, 467M part time hours. 2.3B employee hours/year. So increasing average employee pay to $100/hour would cost the Waltons $210B of their $8B of income from Walmart a year. For that matter, raising average pay to $12.29 would wipe out their income period. You could reach $15.77 if you theoretically turned Walmart into a non-profit.

$2/hour to the proposed federal minimum wage increase would seem doable though. It would also increase our tax base - more people paying the higher income tax rates vs the 15% max long term capital gain rate the Waltons almost certainly take advantage of.

We shouldn't challenge student's fixed beliefs? Or undermine parental authority? Those sound like usual and desired outcomes of critical thinking skills.

Yes, because the last thing we want is the child to possibly believe there is or may be a god, or that sharing is good, stealing is bad, murder is bad and you will be locked up for life unless you live in a state that will kill you too, that you should look both ways before crossing a street, cussing and swearing around people you do not know is impolite and still rude with ones you do know, or anything else parents instill as fixed beliefs with their authority. Well, that unless the child comes to those conclusions on their own through trial and error or whatever process he/she may choose to develop an understanding of them.

Yes, that sounds like a great thing.

And I'll admit that "focus on behavior modification" sounds like a code phrase. You seem to like this statement; could you translate it into language that I can understand?

Politifact has a writeup on it that explains it. Some of the links are dead though but it drops the meat right in the analysis.

From this write up

Opponents said the outcome-based approach was antithetical to critical thinking. They claimed it "dumbed down" curricula and influenced students to adopt liberal attitudes because the "outcome" of their studies was predetermined by academia.

In case you did not know, most conservatives think academia is fraught with liberals pushing their agenda which is why you can get Mumia Abu-Jamal speaking at a commencement ceremony and Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, protested to the point they withdrew from speaking. The lists goes on.

Part of this is from The Naked Communist (1958) and School of Darkness by Bella V. Dodd but more recent claims have been made

You don't have to believe those claims, but you should believe that other do. That is what is meant by behavior modification as stated.

I know that some people love to blame everything on our Muslim, Kenyan, black president but...
Probably best not to blame Solyndra on Obama since Bush started it.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

"Flat" is just a label,and setting a floor on taxation or providing exemptions for necessity items fixes the largest knock on "Flat Tax" which is that hits those near the poverty line with a pretty blunt hammer.

The problem with the current graduated system isn't that people in the middle or people in, say, the 60-80 percentile don't pay enough -- I'm fairly sure they do -- it's that it ceases to scale at the top. As long as Buffet pays a smaller percentage than his secretary, something seems broken with the graduated system -- since it's obviously not graduated, as the wealthiest pay 15% tax, and (I suspect) guys like you and me pay in the 30+ range.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

We fact-checked Warren Buffett's statements about taxes in the New York Times. Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent." Individual tax filings are private, so there was no way we could compare Buffett's actual tax return with that of his secretary and other co-workers. (We contacted his office when we did the fact-check and didn't hear back.) So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True.

It's easy to argue that, hey, after I pay a million, perhaps I've paid enough, 'eh? And it's hard to argue against a cap on both ends. There's no perfect system.