The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.
The person writing the tickets saw the obviously incorrect DOT marking and did nothing. The like that people were being trapped. They probably found it easier to meet quotas. Ignoring this obvious issue is egregious and this person/people should be punished.
I will gladly pay you tomorrow for something you give me today. Do you understand why they are paying healthcare and benefits 70 years out? What is required is that you actually pay for benefits you provide in the budget that corresponds to when you promise the benefit. If you promise someone pension and healthcare benefits you need to pay for them in that 2014 years budget, not in 2094 years budget when the person is retired and drawing the benefit. You are providing compensation and it needs to be out of this years budget. Otherwise you are saying I will pay you 60k today and in 70 years I will pay you another 200k. The great thing about that 200k is you will not be around to have to pay it.
If I am a politician or executive with a short term focus, I will happily provide benefits that will be paid when I am long gone. I can talk about how there where huge surpluses under my watch and everyone was happy with their compensation.
If the Kock brothers truly want to have influence, they would buy a major network. Look how that worked for Comcast. Their is very little opposition to their merge in part because who wants negative coverage from a major network. With a major network you can exert tremendous influence on elections without having to worry about election laws. Do the Kock brothers spend more on elections than other billionaires? I suggest you educate yourself.
Where are the programs to incentivizing men to graduate from college. Currently women graduate from college at significantly higher rates then men. When men graduated more often them women there were programs and incentives set up get more women to graduate from college. Now that that has been reversed and the gap continues to grow, the solution is to offer programs to get women to college in the few areas where more men graduate.
According to ed.gov "From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, the percentage of degrees earned by females remained between approximately 60 and 62 percent for associate's degrees and between 57 and 58 percent for bachelor's degrees. In contrast, the percentages of both master's and doctor's degrees earned by females increased from 1999–2000 to 2009–10 (from 58 to 60 percent and from 45 to 52 percent, respectively). " http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...
So when will the trend of offering more women incentives then men to attend college stop when woman graduate from college 2 to 1 to men. Or 3 to 1.
You are calling other people ignorant of the way things work and then you say "Now with the recent Supreme Court folly the Tea Party and other scientific denier whackos will have even more Super PAC money to continue their dirty work in the name of the 1%". The amount of money that could be given to a super pac is already unlimited. The supreme court struck down the limit on total cumulative contributions to candidates and parties. The amount you can individually give to a candidate is still limit. The decision means that if you want to give a little money to every politician you can.
The real issue to me is bundlers. The whole contribution limit is to prevent quid pro quo corruption. That is why the limit to an individual politician is just a few thousand. If someone can go to a bunch of people and get them to donate money they are a bundler. To the politician it is almost as if they are getting hundreds of thousands from the bundler. President Obama has named several of these bundlers as ambassadors and they had never visited the county and could not even answer simple questions about the country where they were going to represent the US. President Obama is not the only one to do this, President Bush named bundlers as ambassadors too.
You try to make this a right wing issue, but the Democrats routinely out raise the Republicans. Obama out raised his opponent in both presidential elections.
If you took all money out of politics then the only exposure on the candidates would be through the news, volunteers, and endorsements. How much influence would the New York Times endorsement be worth? How much would a labor union whose members go door to door be worth? How much would the endorsement of another popular politician be worth?
So you believe in censorship when you do not like what people say. It is defacto censorship to ignore everything said by conservative outlets. You will claim that their news is not true and should be ignored. I want to see your examples of fox and breitbart inaccurate stories. I will then point you to equally inaccurate stories on the other news sources. ABC had the edited video segment to have George Zimmerman imply that he was racist. They also purchased the DC Madam list of clients and only released the names of republicans (rational was republicans have a stance on morality, so they are hypocrites. Democrats never mention woman issues). CBS had the anchor Dan Rather report and vouch for a made up story about George W Bush serving dishonorably in the National Guard.
If debt and deficits don't matter, then the government should send out a million dollars to every citizen. This would ensure there reelection. Why would they not do this since debt does not matter?
If the government did this it would cause massive inflation and all saving would be wiped out. Debt and deficits matter quite significantly, but the real question is how much debt is sustainable. At some point your currency is devalued and you wind up speeding a billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread (a la Zimbabwe).
You are conflating the rich with the high income earners. We only tax income. We do not tax assets. If you are rich you make money off the increase of your assets (companies, properties, etc.), but you do not have to pay taxes for their increase in value until you sell the assets. For example, Warren Buffett is only taxed on the money he is paid in salary and stocks he sells, but the great majority of his asset increase is the value of his company increasing. His total effect tax on is asset increase is basically zero. His income is also effectively zero when compared to his asset increase. If he wants to buy something, he can borrow money against his assets and pay no tax for this. He does not care if the income tax is a 100% because it would barely affect the amount of money he is earning. However, those of us that earn a salary will wind up paying even more in taxes. When people talk about the 1% they are talking about the people who have large salaries, not necessarily the rich that control most of the assets in this country. This is a very important distinction.
This looks like this bill was was bipartisan legislation. "The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[14] and 74-25 in the Senate,[15] and was signed into law by President Bush.[16][17]". You can read more at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
Ok, I will bite on this one. Can you name the Successful republican candidates that believe it is necessary to mention that Hitler believed in evolution? I have never heard Mitt Romney or John McCain say this. They were the last two republican candidates for president.
How about knowing how to change the phone tables so it looked like the call that was doing this was coming from someone else's house. They would know that someone was hacking, they could trace it back, but the trace would lead to the wrong house. Probably one of the reason he was so well known. If you can hack and no one knows it, you might not get famous.
This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted.:) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.
Yes, the baby boomers are now all over thirty, but they would probably be considered liberals not libertarians. The movement that spoke of don't trust anyone over thirty was the hippies. The phrase is credited to Jack Weinberg.
It is nice that Fred Phelps Jr. decided to follow a different path than his father by affiliating with a different political party. Fred Phelps ran for office in Kansas several times as a Democrat. From wikipedia "He has occasionally run for political office as a Democrat. In the election for United States Senator for Kansas in 1992, he received 49,416 votes (30.8%) in the Democratic primary, coming in second after Gloria O'Dell (who subsequently lost to later presidential candidate Bob Dole)." It is disingenuous to just assign people who you disapprove of to the other party. Fred Phelps is often referred to as right wing, but his political party choice was the Democrats.
You don't die without health insurance, you go broke if you get a bad illness. You don't die without car insurance, you go broke if you get in a bad wreck.
When my father turned 65 he was forced into Medicare (you cannot opt out without penalty) and his health insurance rates went up. No we are not part of the one percent.
Having open bids and only one "bidder" is actually different than sole source/no bid.
I would say yes and no. You can always write a contract such that there can only be one bidder. You just add restrictions that no one else can meet. Must have thousands of hours in experience building government exchanges would be a good choice.
The first 55.7 million spent on the Obamacare site was purchased from CGI Federal without bidding. The contract that CGI Federal won (31 bidders) was simply an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity agreement. This means that the government can buy things from you. Most federal contractors have one of these. The administration then purchased 55.7 million on this contract without bidding it out. There was probably a dollar limit that caused them to have to do an open bidding. The government had already spent 55.7 million with CGI Federal when they bid out the contract extension specifically to build the Obamacare site. Most companies do not bid on these extensions because they go to the incumbent unless the Government is unhappy with them. Who else is better positioned to extend code and provide fixes than the company that wrote the first 55.7 million of the code.
What is being claimed here is that there was bidding for the contract that allowed CGI Federal to sell to the Government. This is basically a vehicle used to purchase services. CGI Federal was awarded a contract that allows them to sell things (IT services) to the government. The site was started on this contract without rebidding. When the extension in 2011 was bid to 4 provides CGI Federal reported at the time of the extension that it had received $55.7 million for the first year's work to build Healthcare.gov. So there were bidders to do more work on the site. The original 55.7 million does not appear to have been bid. So yes this was a no bid contract. Once they had built 55.7 million worth of the site they then put it out to bid and the company CGI Federal already building it won.
From the same article.
Because "there are very strict regulations on sole-source contracts," an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity agreement makes it easier for the government to avoid running afoul of those requirements, said Sajeev Malaveetil, a director at the Berkeley Research Group, a procurement consultant.
IT work is particularly suited to imprecise, open-ended contracts. "Agencies know that at some point they'll need IT services or system implementation," Malaveetil said. "ID/IQ contracts can often be for five or 10 years: the agency just keeps issuing delivery task orders, which fall under the base language of the contract."
No other IT contractors have come forward to say they, too, bid on the contract to build Healthcare.gov.
Slashdot Mirror
The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.
The person writing the tickets saw the obviously incorrect DOT marking and did nothing. The like that people were being trapped. They probably found it easier to meet quotas. Ignoring this obvious issue is egregious and this person/people should be punished.
I will gladly pay you tomorrow for something you give me today. Do you understand why they are paying healthcare and benefits 70 years out? What is required is that you actually pay for benefits you provide in the budget that corresponds to when you promise the benefit. If you promise someone pension and healthcare benefits you need to pay for them in that 2014 years budget, not in 2094 years budget when the person is retired and drawing the benefit. You are providing compensation and it needs to be out of this years budget. Otherwise you are saying I will pay you 60k today and in 70 years I will pay you another 200k. The great thing about that 200k is you will not be around to have to pay it.
If I am a politician or executive with a short term focus, I will happily provide benefits that will be paid when I am long gone. I can talk about how there where huge surpluses under my watch and everyone was happy with their compensation.
If the Kock brothers truly want to have influence, they would buy a major network. Look how that worked for Comcast. Their is very little opposition to their merge in part because who wants negative coverage from a major network. With a major network you can exert tremendous influence on elections without having to worry about election laws. Do the Kock brothers spend more on elections than other billionaires? I suggest you educate yourself.
Where are the programs to incentivizing men to graduate from college. Currently women graduate from college at significantly higher rates then men. When men graduated more often them women there were programs and incentives set up get more women to graduate from college. Now that that has been reversed and the gap continues to grow, the solution is to offer programs to get women to college in the few areas where more men graduate.
According to ed.gov "From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, the percentage of degrees earned by females remained between approximately 60 and 62 percent for associate's degrees and between 57 and 58 percent for bachelor's degrees. In contrast, the percentages of both master's and doctor's degrees earned by females increased from 1999–2000 to 2009–10 (from 58 to 60 percent and from 45 to 52 percent, respectively). " http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...
So when will the trend of offering more women incentives then men to attend college stop when woman graduate from college 2 to 1 to men. Or 3 to 1.
You are calling other people ignorant of the way things work and then you say "Now with the recent Supreme Court folly the Tea Party and other scientific denier whackos will have even more Super PAC money to continue their dirty work in the name of the 1%". The amount of money that could be given to a super pac is already unlimited. The supreme court struck down the limit on total cumulative contributions to candidates and parties. The amount you can individually give to a candidate is still limit. The decision means that if you want to give a little money to every politician you can. The real issue to me is bundlers. The whole contribution limit is to prevent quid pro quo corruption. That is why the limit to an individual politician is just a few thousand. If someone can go to a bunch of people and get them to donate money they are a bundler. To the politician it is almost as if they are getting hundreds of thousands from the bundler. President Obama has named several of these bundlers as ambassadors and they had never visited the county and could not even answer simple questions about the country where they were going to represent the US. President Obama is not the only one to do this, President Bush named bundlers as ambassadors too. You try to make this a right wing issue, but the Democrats routinely out raise the Republicans. Obama out raised his opponent in both presidential elections. If you took all money out of politics then the only exposure on the candidates would be through the news, volunteers, and endorsements. How much influence would the New York Times endorsement be worth? How much would a labor union whose members go door to door be worth? How much would the endorsement of another popular politician be worth?
So you believe in censorship when you do not like what people say. It is defacto censorship to ignore everything said by conservative outlets. You will claim that their news is not true and should be ignored. I want to see your examples of fox and breitbart inaccurate stories. I will then point you to equally inaccurate stories on the other news sources. ABC had the edited video segment to have George Zimmerman imply that he was racist. They also purchased the DC Madam list of clients and only released the names of republicans (rational was republicans have a stance on morality, so they are hypocrites. Democrats never mention woman issues). CBS had the anchor Dan Rather report and vouch for a made up story about George W Bush serving dishonorably in the National Guard.
If debt and deficits don't matter, then the government should send out a million dollars to every citizen. This would ensure there reelection. Why would they not do this since debt does not matter? If the government did this it would cause massive inflation and all saving would be wiped out. Debt and deficits matter quite significantly, but the real question is how much debt is sustainable. At some point your currency is devalued and you wind up speeding a billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread (a la Zimbabwe).
I would not be surprised if he was actually against immigration. He seems to be making pro immigration arguments as unpalatable as possible.
You are conflating the rich with the high income earners. We only tax income. We do not tax assets. If you are rich you make money off the increase of your assets (companies, properties, etc.), but you do not have to pay taxes for their increase in value until you sell the assets. For example, Warren Buffett is only taxed on the money he is paid in salary and stocks he sells, but the great majority of his asset increase is the value of his company increasing. His total effect tax on is asset increase is basically zero. His income is also effectively zero when compared to his asset increase. If he wants to buy something, he can borrow money against his assets and pay no tax for this. He does not care if the income tax is a 100% because it would barely affect the amount of money he is earning. However, those of us that earn a salary will wind up paying even more in taxes. When people talk about the 1% they are talking about the people who have large salaries, not necessarily the rich that control most of the assets in this country. This is a very important distinction.
This looks like this bill was was bipartisan legislation. "The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[14] and 74-25 in the Senate,[15] and was signed into law by President Bush.[16][17]". You can read more at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
Ok, I will bite on this one. Can you name the Successful republican candidates that believe it is necessary to mention that Hitler believed in evolution? I have never heard Mitt Romney or John McCain say this. They were the last two republican candidates for president.
Did the presidents veto it? No. Then they are to blame too.
How about knowing how to change the phone tables so it looked like the call that was doing this was coming from someone else's house. They would know that someone was hacking, they could trace it back, but the trace would lead to the wrong house. Probably one of the reason he was so well known. If you can hack and no one knows it, you might not get famous.
This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.
Yes, the baby boomers are now all over thirty, but they would probably be considered liberals not libertarians. The movement that spoke of don't trust anyone over thirty was the hippies. The phrase is credited to Jack Weinberg.
It is nice that Fred Phelps Jr. decided to follow a different path than his father by affiliating with a different political party. Fred Phelps ran for office in Kansas several times as a Democrat. From wikipedia "He has occasionally run for political office as a Democrat. In the election for United States Senator for Kansas in 1992, he received 49,416 votes (30.8%) in the Democratic primary, coming in second after Gloria O'Dell (who subsequently lost to later presidential candidate Bob Dole)." It is disingenuous to just assign people who you disapprove of to the other party. Fred Phelps is often referred to as right wing, but his political party choice was the Democrats.
You don't die without health insurance, you go broke if you get a bad illness. You don't die without car insurance, you go broke if you get in a bad wreck.
When my father turned 65 he was forced into Medicare (you cannot opt out without penalty) and his health insurance rates went up. No we are not part of the one percent.
Congratulations! You have been named to the board of directors of a major public company.
Halliburton was a competatively bid contract for rebuilding. In fact, it is very similar, so either that contract was not no-bid or this contract was no bid. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207451/bush-iraq-scandal-wasnt/byron-york
Having open bids and only one "bidder" is actually different than sole source/no bid.
I would say yes and no. You can always write a contract such that there can only be one bidder. You just add restrictions that no one else can meet. Must have thousands of hours in experience building government exchanges would be a good choice.
The first 55.7 million spent on the Obamacare site was purchased from CGI Federal without bidding. The contract that CGI Federal won (31 bidders) was simply an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity agreement. This means that the government can buy things from you. Most federal contractors have one of these. The administration then purchased 55.7 million on this contract without bidding it out. There was probably a dollar limit that caused them to have to do an open bidding. The government had already spent 55.7 million with CGI Federal when they bid out the contract extension specifically to build the Obamacare site. Most companies do not bid on these extensions because they go to the incumbent unless the Government is unhappy with them. Who else is better positioned to extend code and provide fixes than the company that wrote the first 55.7 million of the code.
What is being claimed here is that there was bidding for the contract that allowed CGI Federal to sell to the Government. This is basically a vehicle used to purchase services. CGI Federal was awarded a contract that allows them to sell things (IT services) to the government. The site was started on this contract without rebidding. When the extension in 2011 was bid to 4 provides CGI Federal reported at the time of the extension that it had received $55.7 million for the first year's work to build Healthcare.gov. So there were bidders to do more work on the site. The original 55.7 million does not appear to have been bid. So yes this was a no bid contract. Once they had built 55.7 million worth of the site they then put it out to bid and the company CGI Federal already building it won.
From the same article. Because "there are very strict regulations on sole-source contracts," an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity agreement makes it easier for the government to avoid running afoul of those requirements, said Sajeev Malaveetil, a director at the Berkeley Research Group, a procurement consultant. IT work is particularly suited to imprecise, open-ended contracts. "Agencies know that at some point they'll need IT services or system implementation," Malaveetil said. "ID/IQ contracts can often be for five or 10 years: the agency just keeps issuing delivery task orders, which fall under the base language of the contract." No other IT contractors have come forward to say they, too, bid on the contract to build Healthcare.gov.