Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

City of NO has a huge building on the interstate,

and it's about to be joined by a second, huge modern one. People probably think it's a major corporation, but there are no signs or logos. It's the city's largest employer. It's the criminal

sheriff's jail.

Incarceration has turned into big business in this county

So we should trust murderers, rapists, and pedophiles with national security secrets and entrust them to direct the spending of millions and millions of dollars?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount

of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

City of NO has a huge building on the interstate,

and it's about to be joined by a second, huge

modern one. People probably think it's a major corporation, but there are no signs or logos. It's the city's largest employer. It's the criminal

sheriff's jail.

Incarceration has turned into big business in this county

So we should trust murderers, rapists, and pedophiles with national security secrets and entrust them to direct the spending of millions and millions of dollars?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of non-violent drug offender

 

[jon_mx]

The disparity between crack and powder cocaine shouldn't exist but the real problem is the amount

of non-violent drug offenders we put in jail.

City of NO has a huge building on the interstate,

and it's about to be joined by a second, huge

modern one. People probably think it's a major corporation, but there are no signs or logos. It's the city's largest employer. It's the criminal

sheriff's jail.

Incarceration has turned into big business in this county

So we should trust murderers, rapists, and pedophiles with national security secrets and entrust them to direct the spending of millions and millions of dollars?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of non-violent drug offender

From the post I did not see that distinction anywhere. It said Hillary was going to order federal employers not to ask about prior convictions.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I thought the distinction was clear when my first post on this topic referenced non-violent drug offenders. In the future, I will be sure to write it twice so folks like yourself will pick up on it.

 

[The Commish]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clinton’s campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the “African Americans for Hillary” group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. It’s her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

“We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity,” said Clinton, adding: “We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.”

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a “spontaneous investigative activity” unless there’s information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently “disproportionately hurts black Americans,” who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to “ban the box,” a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

 

[Slapdash]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Cracking open an Econ 101 book (to Chapter 1, no less) and understanding that a huge influx of supply will lower prices isn't really "bizarre", Slap. You're usually pretty sharp on these things - kinda surprised.

Besides, the effects of current policy are pretty evident. Say one thing, policy does the exact opposite. Pretty hypocritical, but they've managed to get away with it thus far.

My comment is more focused on your Fed policy argument.

Having the Fed raise rate even further above the Wicksellian natural rate is certainly not going to help the lower classes. It would cause another recession. There are certainly issues with the current policy such as unclear objectives and a discretionary approach. However, the Fed is not able to hold rates far away from the natural rate without causing other impacts. If the Fed was holding rates artificially low, it would show up in an overheated economy with rapid inflation. On the contrary, we continue to see weak growth and historically low inflation. That tells me the natural rate is likely negative. Making that differential even worse is a terrible option. That may not be covered in Econ 101, but I have taken a lot more economics than that.

Unfortunately, the above suggests that there are deep structural problems in the economy. It is much too difficult to start a new business. IP laws and licensing requirements are stifling job creation. Our safety next structure highly disincentives taking a job once you have lost one. The continued automation possible by technology both replaces jobs and adds to deflationary pressure.

These things are largely outside of the Fed's control. All they can do is set rates at a level that best maximizes employment and generates inflation consistent with 2% a year. That level of rates is certainly not higher than today, IMO. Raising rates would just slow inflation further and harm the tepid labor market economy.

I don't really disagree about the immigration piece though. It is probably not the best time to encourage more immigration with such high "real" unemployment. Even if that wasn't a current issue, we should be able to control our borders and choose who gets in.

 

[timschochet]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/



Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce. On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

People for this profiling law are living in an ivory tower. Cops here are under enough pressure - cuts in details, federal supervision, underpaid - and now they could be sued or charged for stopping someone based on a description? Why be a cop here?

 

[jon_mx]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/



Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce. On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

 

[timschochet]

jon, I'm not the best person to ask how to do this. I'm not in law enforcement. All I can say is that there should be ways to make reasonable searches of people without characterizing based on race- or at least, primarily on race.

 

[Sand]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Cracking open an Econ 101 book (to Chapter 1, no less) and understanding that a huge influx of supply will lower prices isn't really "bizarre", Slap. You're usually pretty sharp on these things - kinda surprised.

Besides, the effects of current policy are pretty evident. Say one thing, policy does the exact opposite. Pretty hypocritical, but they've managed to get away with it thus far.

My comment is more focused on your Fed policy argument.

Having the Fed raise rate even further above the Wicksellian natural rate is certainly not going to help the lower classes. It would cause another recession. There are certainly issues with the current policy such as unclear objectives and a discretionary approach. However, the Fed is not able to hold rates far away from the natural rate without causing other impacts. If the Fed was holding rates artificially low, it would show up in an overheated economy with rapid inflation. On the contrary, we continue to see weak growth and historically low inflation. That tells me the natural rate is likely negative. Making that differential even worse is a terrible option. That may not be covered in Econ 101, but I have taken a lot more economics than that.

Unfortunately, the above suggests that there are deep structural problems in the economy. It is much too difficult to start a new business. IP laws and licensing requirements are stifling job creation. Our safety next structure highly disincentives taking a job once you have lost one. The continued automation possible by technology both replaces jobs and adds to deflationary pressure.

These things are largely outside of the Fed's control. All they can do is set rates at a level that best maximizes employment and generates inflation consistent with 2% a year. That level of rates is certainly not higher than today, IMO. Raising rates would just slow inflation further and harm the tepid labor market economy.

I don't really disagree about the immigration piece though. It is probably not the best time to encourage more immigration with such high "real" unemployment. Even if that wasn't a current issue, we should be able to control our borders and choose who gets in.

Ah, I missed that you were referring to the Fed - I knew something was amiss here. I don't know if there is a suitable Econ class that can teach Fed policy adequately. It's in the syllabus right next to Understanding Women 605, I'm sure.

There was an article by the St. Louis Fed (I think) not too long ago that talked about how ZIRP policy has increased wealth inequality (at the top). I need to see if I can find it. I didn't pull that thought out of thin air.

Edit: Here is a good article. #5 talks a bit about inequality.

 

[The Commish]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

I don't want it either, but it is absolutely out of anyone but the individual's control

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well State had their monthly end of week, late Friday document dump. Results:

• More Classified emails found:

In the new batch, State deemed 268 emails classified at the lowest classification tier, according to spokesman John Kirby, who said that none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received." There are now between 600 and 700 emails newly marked as classified since the releases began in May.

• One email which was Classified and sent by Hillary herself. You will note that the Declassification date is 8/15/24, which is 15 years after she sent it, which means it has higher Classification value (minimal is 10 years, this is 15) and it was Classified at the date that Hillary sent it, 8/16/09.
  
• And a claim of Executive Privilege:

Obama drawn into Clinton email controversy

As State Department releases the latest batch, the White House is trying to hold back the release of Clinton's emails with Obama.


...The White House will try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton, citing longstanding precedent invoked by presidents of both parties to keep presidential communications confidential, officials said Friday.
The State Department discovered the emails between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton as part of its effort to release the former secretary’s emails, several thousand more of which were scheduled to be made public on Friday. Mr. Obama’s correspondence was forwarded for review to the White House, which has decided against release.

...

• And apparently the emails show Hillary involved in embassy security issues.

One email from April 23, 2009, however, shows top State aide Huma Abedin updating Clinton on a few embassy security issues. In a series of bullet points sent to “H2” at 8:34 a.m., Abedin listed steps State was taking to secure Afghanistan and Pakistan embassies, including “increasing the number of hooches, and doubling up staff in lodging.”
“[W]e need to improve the security perimeter — acquiring property adjacent to our current facilities in Kabul, which is now difficult to secure,” one bullet reads. “Long-term, we need embassies in these countries adequate to serve the mission. It's not so long ago our Embassy in Islamabad was torched; we need a facility which is structurally sound. In Kabul, we need facilities adequate to size the mission needed.”

It was not clear, though, if Clinton responded to the email or followed up in any other way.

Another newly released Libya email forwarded to Clinton and her top policy staffer Jake Sullivan, dated about a year before the Benghazi attack, warned of Islamist threats in Libya that could turn eventually pose a serious danger. State Department policy planning official Andrew Miller sent Sullivan a memo warning that once Qaddafi was ousted, Islamist groups that had focused their energy on canning the brutal dictator could turn their attention elsewhere and become violent.

"Once operations against Qadhafi and the regime are wrapped up, this force for unity is likely to dissipate,” Miller wrote. Sullivan forwarded the memo to Clinton, who asked her staff to “pls print.” “It is at this point that militias, including the Islamists, will probably abandon caution and pursue a more aggressive campaign for power, perhaps including violence.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-release-215359#ixzz3q9pwgxhi

 

[culdeus]

Oh my god she emailed Obama? Is there any way this can lead to Obama getting impeached?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Oh my god she emailed Obama? Is there any way this can lead to Obama getting impeached?

No, I think everyone agrees since the 90s that mere (alleged) bad behavior (if it were found to exist) isn't impeachable. It could lead to a fight in the courts and Congress over executive privilege though. It's also risky for the Republicans because instead of witches wringing their hands over a brewing cauldron of conspiracy they could find emails confirming the WH's position.

The WH's last on this was that Obama was aware of her email account and naturally emailed with her but not that she had a private server squirreled away in her basement, which I guess is plausible.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

Maybe you missed the text in the article yourself - look I can go on about police abuses, we have a long history of it here, but if you do this...

linking the person to a crime

...ie require police to have knowledge and belief that a particular person instead of a person matching a description then you are pretty much screwing police work and the ability to stop people on reasonable suspicion.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't agree with the last move, at least off the top of my head. It seems to me that if a person was convicted of a felony, particularly a violent one, that should be a consideration when the government is looking to hire. Is there something here that I'm not considering?

It's only at the initial stage. They will still know about the felony before deciding to hire. The idea is that the individual might at least get an interview this way and have a chance to make a good impression instead of being excluded from the beginning.

I don't like the idea of the government mandating this for private employers. However, if the government wants to do this for their own workers (or contractors), I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

Maybe you missed the text in the article yourself - look I can go on about police abuses, we have a long history of it here, but if you do this...

linking the person to a crime

...ie require police to have knowledge and belief that a particular person instead of a person matching a description then you are pretty much screwing police work and the ability to stop people on reasonable suspicion.

A description of the suspect is not "information linking the person to a crime"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Semi-serious question: why do we need a Congress? For what? Why?

Should we really allow what is classified be determined by executive order?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah my question was about my misreading that Hillary planned to regulate local police officers by EO. I agree on the hiring issue as being subject to EO. As for classification rules yes I think that's the WH's responsibility. I'm not sure every administration has to reissue the rules but they do. You and I could probably agree that some issues are overclassified but we also know that that argument is never a defense for people accused of mishandling classified data.

 

[Slapdash]

Says the guy who voted for Romney.

Romney would have been significantly better for the middle and lower classes than either Obama and Hillary. We know income inequality has been drastically exaggerated by our ZIRP policies along with unfettered illegal immigration. There's no way for policy to get any worse on that than what we already have.

Holy crap.

One of the most bizarre arguments I've seen, but he makes it a lot.

Cracking open an Econ 101 book (to Chapter 1, no less) and understanding that a huge influx of supply will lower prices isn't really "bizarre", Slap. You're usually pretty sharp on these things - kinda surprised.

Besides, the effects of current policy are pretty evident. Say one thing, policy does the exact opposite. Pretty hypocritical, but they've managed to get away with it thus far.

My comment is more focused on your Fed policy argument.

Having the Fed raise rate even further above the Wicksellian natural rate is certainly not going to help the lower classes. It would cause another recession. There are certainly issues with the current policy such as unclear objectives and a discretionary approach. However, the Fed is not able to hold rates far away from the natural rate without causing other impacts. If the Fed was holding rates artificially low, it would show up in an overheated economy with rapid inflation. On the contrary, we continue to see weak growth and historically low inflation. That tells me the natural rate is likely negative. Making that differential even worse is a terrible option. That may not be covered in Econ 101, but I have taken a lot more economics than that.

Unfortunately, the above suggests that there are deep structural problems in the economy. It is much too difficult to start a new business. IP laws and licensing requirements are stifling job creation. Our safety next structure highly disincentives taking a job once you have lost one. The continued automation possible by technology both replaces jobs and adds to deflationary pressure.

These things are largely outside of the Fed's control. All they can do is set rates at a level that best maximizes employment and generates inflation consistent with 2% a year. That level of rates is certainly not higher than today, IMO. Raising rates would just slow inflation further and harm the tepid labor market economy.

I don't really disagree about the immigration piece though. It is probably not the best time to encourage more immigration with such high "real" unemployment. Even if that wasn't a current issue, we should be able to control our borders and choose who gets in.

Ah, I missed that you were referring to the Fed - I knew something was amiss here. I don't know if there is a suitable Econ class that can teach Fed policy adequately. It's in the syllabus right next to Understanding Women 605, I'm sure.

There was an article by the St. Louis Fed (I think) not too long ago that talked about how ZIRP policy has increased wealth inequality (at the top). I need to see if I can find it. I didn't pull that thought out of thin air.

Edit: Here is a good article. #5 talks a bit about inequality.

good one

I'm not buying the argument that rates on savings accounts are more important to income inequality than increasing employment and wages. The truth is that the Fed cannot control rates in the long run by setting it far away from the natural rate. Rates have been at zero for 7 years now without a hint of inflationary pressure. That strongly suggests rates have been appropriate or too high. Trying to raise rates now will be self-defeating, like it was in Europe in 2011. We can agree to disagree on that one.

I can get behind the stuff around "zombie" companies from your link, but that is more a failure of Congress than the Fed. You cannot bailout failed companies and leave their management in place. You shouldn't bail out companies in the first place, at least they somewhat reformed Detroit after their bailout. Banks should have been broken up or the shareholders/management should have been wiped out in exchange for funds. Their continued weakness is a serious drag.

 

[Sand]

I don't agree with the last move, at least off the top of my head. It seems to me that if a person was convicted of a felony, particularly a violent one, that should be a consideration when the government is looking to hire. Is there something here that I'm not considering?

It's only at the initial stage. They will still know about the felony before deciding to hire. The idea is that the individual might at least get an interview this way and have a chance to make a good impression instead of being excluded from the beginning.

I don't like the idea of the government mandating this for private employers. However, if the government wants to do this for their own workers (or contractors), I don't have a problem with it.

I do. Huge waste of my time if this happened. Anyone I hire has to be a US citizen and capable of getting at least a secret clearance. A guy/gal with felonies just isn't going to meet this basic requirement.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't agree with the last move, at least off the top of my head. It seems to me that if a person was convicted of a felony, particularly a violent one, that should be a consideration when the government is looking to hire. Is there something here that I'm not considering?

It's only at the initial stage. They will still know about the felony before deciding to hire. The idea is that the individual might at least get an interview this way and have a chance to make a good impression instead of being excluded from the beginning. I don't like the idea of the government mandating this for private employers. However, if the government wants to do this for their own workers (or contractors), I don't have a problem with it.

In that case a felony would still be an automatic disqualifier, so all you did was give the applicant lip service.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton Backs Obama on Troops to Syria

- This is consistent with her policy of intervention in Libya as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

Maybe you missed the text in the article yourself - look I can go on about police abuses, we have a long history of it here, but if you do this...

linking the person to a crime

...ie require police to have knowledge and belief that a particular person instead of a person matching a description then you are pretty much screwing police work and the ability to stop people on reasonable suspicion.

A description of the suspect is not "information linking the person to a crime"?

Well if you and I agree that a skin color description is part of the description of the suspect then that law she is proposing has no teeth. Police stopping people for driving while black or walking white is not ok right now either.

Classic example here in NO is a black guy shoots another black guy and then the cops circle the neighborhood looking for a black guy who meets a certain description (typically height, hair and clothing). Sometimes innocent people get caught up in that and some call that profiling because they are mistakenly stopped. When I hear "linking a person to a crime" it sure sounds to me like Hillary & Co. are proposing that a particular person by name be identified. That's not going to work very well for cops and those of us who live in high crime cities.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-black-voter-outreach-effort-in-atlanta/

Clinton endorsed legislation that would ban racial profiling by law enforcement, vowed to sign an executive order that would ban federal employers for asking job-seekers about their prior criminal convictions and pushed to eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine in drug sentencing.

They are part of a broader package that Clintons campaign plans to unveil over the next few days.

She also rolled out the African Americans for Hillary group at Clark Atlanta University after a luncheon with black ministers headlined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Its her first public campaign appearance in Atlanta this year, although she has visited for private fundraisers.

We have to take on the continuing abuses where oppression is more prevalent than opportunity, said Clinton, adding: We have to create those channels of opportunity so that we go from childhood to adulthood pursuing your dreams, instead of cradle to prison and seeing them die.

Her proposal would prohibit any law enforcement officer from relying on race when making routine stops or a spontaneous investigative activity unless theres information linking the person to a crime, according to a campaign aide.

She will also seek to end disparities in sentencing for people caught with powder cocaine and crack. President Barack Obama signed a law in 2010 that helped bring down a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, but those convicted of using crack still face far steeper penalties.

Clinton will vow to make them even by increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the powder cocaine guidelines. A campaign aide said treating both forms of the same drug differently disproportionately hurts black Americans, who tend to use the drug more commonly than others.

And she said she will sign an order to ban the box, a move preventing government agencies as well as contractors from asking about a job-seekers criminal history at the initial application stage. Clinton said the measure, which Deal enacted in Georgia earlier this year, would give convicted criminals a better chance to compete for a job.

You understand this is toothless, right? It's very similar to "you can't be fired for being black". It's wonderful on the surface, but as soon as you look under the covers at how it would be determined (All the cop has to do is say "he/she was acting suspicious so I investigated") then it falls apart becoming another law on the books that can't really be enforced. The rest, who cares? The war on drugs is proving to be an exercise in futility. Furthering it is an embarrassment and waste of funds IMO.

I mostly agree with you. It would be very difficult to enforce.On the other hand, I don't want police officers starting out with the idea that it's OK to profile- it really should be illegal IMO.

A group of one black guy, a Hispanic, and a white dude in their late teens commit a robbery. You see three guys who match that discription. You can't question them because that would be racial profiling?

Ah, sorry I did not see that part.

Maybe you missed the text in the article yourself - look I can go on about police abuses, we have a long history of it here, but if you do this...

linking the person to a crime

...ie require police to have knowledge and belief that a particular person instead of a person matching a description then you are pretty much screwing police work and the ability to stop people on reasonable suspicion.

A description of the suspect is not "information linking the person to a crime"?

Well if you and I agree that a skin color description is part of the description of the suspect then that law she is proposing has no teeth. Police stopping people for driving while black or walking white is not ok right now either.

Classic example here in NO is a black guy shoots another black guy and then the cops circle the neighborhood looking for a black guy who meets a certain description (typically height, hair and clothing). Sometimes innocent people get caught up in that and some call that profiling because they are mistakenly stopped. When I hear "linking a person to a crime" it sure sounds to me like Hillary & Co. are proposing that a particular person by name be identified. That's not going to work very well for cops and those of us who live in high crime cities.

 

[The Commish]

List looks kinda familiar

All the same names, just in a slightly different order (for now)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

List looks kinda familiar

All the same names, just in a slightly different order (for now)

What is Dish Network's angle?Corning has major stakes in the TPP, as does Google.

With one exception plus the universities, every thing is a tech conglomerate, mega financiers and banks, and lobbyists.

Akin Gump is a major health care industry lobbyist. They are also representing Hillary's IT guy Pagliano.

JP Morgan employs the bondbroker who registered Hillary's server.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

 

[The Commish]

List looks kinda familiar

All the same names, just in a slightly different order (for now)

What is Dish Network's angle?Corning has major stakes in the TPP, as does Google.

With one exception plus the universities, every thing is a tech conglomerate, mega financiers and banks, and lobbyists.

Akin Gump is a major health care industry lobbyist. They are also representing Hillary's IT guy Pagliano.

JP Morgan employs the bondbroker who registered Hillary's server.

I suspect it's Charlie Ergen.

He's a big "democratic voter" and a large corporation who's benefited from several "initiatives" in Washington. Earlier this year he had a pretty large deal with the gov't via auction for some wireless licenses. Of all the "democratic candidates" which would be the one most likely to enable his behavior?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Sponsors.

Like ManU maybe she should wear their logos on her pantsuits.

 

[timschochet]

Latinos starting to mobilize heavily for Hillary:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/02/hillary-clinton-hispanic-vote-trump/74870274/

Trump, of course, has contributed heavily to this effort. But even before his unfortunate remarks, Hispanics were already gearing up to take up the slack that might expected in black voting this time around.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Sponsors.Like ManU maybe she should wear their logos on her pantsuits.

Why not?

 

[squistion]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Sponsors.Like ManU maybe she should wear their logos on her pantsuits.

Why not?

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?

FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

 

[jon_mx]

Latinos starting to mobilize heavily for Hillary:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/02/hillary-clinton-hispanic-vote-trump/74870274/

Trump, of course, has contributed heavily to this effort. But even before his unfortunate remarks, Hispanics were already gearing up to take up the slack that might expected in black voting this time around.

Why do black people hate Hillary?

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Sponsors.Like ManU maybe she should wear their logos on her pantsuits.

Why not?

It was a joke. She could attend a NASCAR race.

 

[jon_mx]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

 

[jon_mx]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

Seems accurate with your war on popularism and strong support of the establishment. You view anyone who wishes to reduce federal government spending as an extremist.

 

[Sweet J]

Latinos starting to mobilize heavily for Hillary:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/02/hillary-clinton-hispanic-vote-trump/74870274/

Trump, of course, has contributed heavily to this effort. But even before his unfortunate remarks, Hispanics were already gearing up to take up the slack that might expected in black voting this time around.

Why do black people hate Hillary?

They sometimes get mad when a black guy marries a white woman instead of keeping in in the family.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

Seems accurate with your war on popularism and strong support of the establishment. You view anyone who wishes to reduce federal government spending as an extremist.

I don't have blind faith in anyone. I tend to support established order when the alternative is chaos, though that's not always true either. The main reason I don't support populism is because in order to appeal to the masses it offers simplistic solutions to complicat d problems, and those solutions are often worse than the problems themselves. I also hate this "tear the ####er down" mentality- too many people are hurt that way. Of course I recognize the need for change but I prefer it be gradual if we can help it. Sometimes centralized authority is s positive; often it isn't. I don't like making rules about such things as they're not consistent- society is too complicated. It depends on the specifics of the situation.

 

[jon_mx]

Complexity is Corruptions's best friend.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

Well you're wrong, but that's not what I found amusing. It was that Jon feels the need to pigeonhole me at all- or anyone for that matter. One of the reasons that I enjoy this forum is that very few of the posters here can be characterized in a few simplistic sentences. Certainly you can't. I'd like to think that I can't either. Those that can, who are entirely predictable in how they will respond to any issue, are pretty boring and usually not worth the effort of reading what they have to say.

 

[jon_mx]

Lol at Tim being offended by being pigeon-holed. Talk about irony.

 

[timschochet]

Complexity is Corruptions's best friend.

Of course. You want a society with no corruption? Stalinist Russia comes to mind.

 

[timschochet]

Lol at Tim being offended by being pigeon-holed. Talk about irony.

First off amusement and offense are not synonymous. Second, by irony do you mean like rain on your wedding day?

 

[jon_mx]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

Well you're wrong, but that's not what I found amusing. It was that Jon feels the need to pigeonhole me at all- or anyone for that matter. One of the reasons that I enjoy this forum is that very few of the posters here can be characterized in a few simplistic sentences. Certainly you can't. I'd like to think that I can't either. Those that can, who are entirely predictable in how they will respond to any issue, are pretty boring and usually not worth the effort of reading what they have to say.

People that see complex problems and come up with simply solutions are the true genius, see e=mc2. Your hatred of the simple is why you always get confused on issues and flop back and forth, ultimately ending up with the elitist big government solution.