Angry right's secret revulsion: Why they really dodge minimum wage questions

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/03/angry_rights_secret_revulsion_why_they_really_dodge_minimum_wage_questions/

It’s no great secret that Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage. They don’t pretend it’s something they want to do under any circumstances. They don’t even really bother disguising their opposition. 

They cloak their view in dated and oversimplified economic arguments about labor demand and economic growth when the real impediment is ideological, and so it’s a somewhat better kept secret that many Republicans oppose the minimum wage altogether.

Opposing the minimum wage isn’t a politically seemly thing to do, though, and thus the great political consequence of President Obama’s decision, announced during his State of the Union address, to institute a $10.10 minimum wage for future federal contracts, will be to draw the extent of this opposition out into the open.

If there’s one thing conservatives agree upon with respect to Obama’s executive order, it’s that it won’t impact very many people. They’re actually probably correct about that. Yet despite the policy’s marginal impact, some conservatives abruptly turned discovering the means of denying a higher wage to a tiny number of workers into a top priority.

In the days since Obama’s State of the Union address, they’ve attacked the order itself, encouraged Congress to block it, and scoured federal law for a reason that the courts should throw it out.

i think it matters not how many but that some are payed fair wage, the only reason he can't do it nationwide is because as the article states and as they themselves have stated they don't want to raise wage, because of the same lie it hurts business, what about it hurts "we the people" who are more than the businesses so by their logic they should not be concerned because the businesses are a smaller group.

Irrespective of legal questions, the smart political play for Republicans is to let Obama have this one. Assume the order’s validity, note that it’s a fairly marginal change, and then move on. Don’t turn it into an ideological lightning rod.

House Speaker John Boehner understands this, which is why his reaction to the minimum wage order was fairly subdued.

“I think dealing with federal contracts and the minimum wage, he probably has the authority to do that. But we’re going to watch very closely because there’s a Constitution we all take an oath to — including him — and following that Constitution is the basis for our republic, and we shouldn’t put that in jeopardy,” he told reporters last week.

“Let’s understand something: This affects not one current contract,” Boehner said. “It only affects future contracts with the federal government. And so I think the question, Mr. President, is how many people will this executive action actually help? I suspect the answer is somewhere close to zero.”

for someone who seems to know constitution why do they walk all ove it and point at the Pres. as a potential violator aside from the violations they already accused him of, someone needs to take a tally and see who is the real perpetrator here.  most egregious voter blocking denying Americans the right to vote only so their guy can get more votes like gerrymandering.

remember we voted them out of the house by over a million votes but they are still there gerrymandering denying those million plus voters the right to have their votes counted.

Should the NFL Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/nfl-tax-exempt-status-rootstrikers-roger-goodell

Times are good for the National Football League. Viewership is up. For the 47th year in a row, Harris Interactive named pro football the most popular sport in America. And with overall revenues north of $9 billion, the NFL is the most lucrative sports league on the planet.

That's not enough for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. He wants to nearly triple the league's revenues to $25 billion by 2027—a mind-bogglingly large number. But here's an even more shocking fact: The NFL pays nothing in taxes on all those revenues. Not a nickel. And now the anti-corruption organization Rootstrikers wants to put an end to the NFL's free ride.

Over the weekend, Rootstrikers blasted out an email urging people to sign a petition in support of Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) PRO Sports Act, which would ban big sports leagues from receiving tax-exempt status. "You know the NFL as the National Football League," says the Rootstrikers email. "

 But the IRS knows them better as the Nonprofit Football League—that's because the NFL has not paid any taxes since 1966 and average Americans are left paying higher taxes to make up for that lost revenue. Senator [Tom] Coburn is trying to change that, and we support his endeavor." Coburn's bill would ban pro sports leagues with more than $10 million in revenue from receiving tax-exempt status.

do not like the senator from OK. but i do agree with the bill surprised that a republican would vote to take tax advantage away from multi million dollar orgs. my vote a resounding "OH HELL NO YOU CAN'T" why is it a given the more you make the less you pay, those powers that be obviously intend to keep the status quo, but maybe the deficit might be cut even more if the paid a fair amount or even paid at all.  wonder if the congress yes that congress will vote it down or vote at all they tend not to bring things to the floor they don't like or don't have enough to vote the party line.  tour gov't not at work.

Bill O'Reilly Is to Journalism What the WWE Is to Fighting

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/bill-oreilly-is-to-journalism-what-the-wwe-is-to-fighting/283530/

 vain SOB to look like a skinned boiled chicken

Every so often, President Obama grants a one-on-one television interview to a broadcast journalist, and I sit at home cursing the interviewer for going easy on him. 

Remember the laughable questions Steve Kroft asked on 60 Minutes last winter? Well this year, Bill O'Reilly was the one lobbing softballs. 

The Fox News host scored a one-on-one interview that aired during the Super Bowl pre-game show. I fervently hoped he would use the opportunity to press for useful information. Few broadcasters are as intent on signaling to others that they're tough.

so is he really a teddy bear with a smile turned upside down?

Instead he conducted a faux-tough interview made up of questions that were virtually guaranteed to elicit nothing of value. "I want to get some things on the record," he began, implying that he would ask something that hasn't previously been answered on the record. 

"So let's begin with health care," he continued. "October 1st it rolls out. Immediately, there are problems with the computers. When did you know that there were going to be problems with those computers?" 

First of all, Obama answered that months ago in a nationally broadcast press conference. That he would tell the same banal story was virtually guaranteed. Second, who cares when he knew? 

shades of Hilary and Benghazi "what difference does it make now, we need to find out what happened so it doesn't happen again" 

now he's reduced to dusting off old questions already answered or was this a marching order to bring it up and back in sight of their base.

WWE reference i suppose he means staged.

The next question was a bit better.

"Why didn't you fire Sebelius, the secretary in charge of this. Because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn't going to work?" O'Reilly said. "I'm sure that the intent is noble, but I'm a taxpayer. And I'm paying Kathleen Sebelius' salary and she screwed up. And you're not holding her accountable."

More to the point, Obama doesn't seem to have held anyone accountable. I'd have preferred something like, "Did you hold people in leadership positions accountable for this failure? Tell me: who specifically was held accountable and how?" And how about, "What have you done to make sure that the next time the government has to undertake an IT project it won't be a disaster?"

But O'Reilly focuses on Sebelius. And when Obama says "I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable," he doesn't ask for any examples!

He just points about that Sebelius is still there. 

this seems to be that flea they couldn't scratch they like pit bulls get something a run with it until somebody up high tells them to quit, but when something has been answered and the same answer each time the question is posed makes it look like a medieval inquisition.

and it seems as if he just dismissed the answer looking for his own preconceived answer, Fox at it's best still looks for their facts not the facts,

Confucius says

>> Confucius Says ... Chinese Proverbs (NOT!)
>> Confucius was one of the world’s greatest philosophers. Here are some humorous Confucius sayings:
>> A lion will not cheat on his wife, but a Tiger Wood.
>> Man who want pretty nurse, must be patient.
>> Lady who goes camping must beware of evil intent.
>> Man who run in front of car get tired.
>> Man who eat many prunes get good run for money.
>> Man who run behind car get exhausted.
>> Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day.
>> Foolish man give wife grand piano, wise man give wife upright organ.
>> Man who walk through airport turnstile sideways going to Bangkok.
>> Man with one chopstick go hungry.
>> Man who scratch ass should not bite fingernails.
>> Baseball is wrong: Man with four balls cannot walk.
>> Panties not best thing on earth! But, next to best thing on earth.
>> War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.
>> Wife who put husband in doghouse soon find him in cat house.
>> Man who fight with wife all day get no piece at night.
>> It take many nails to build crib, but one screw to fill it.
>> Man who drive like hell, bound to get there.
>> Man who stand on toilet is high on pot.
>> Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement.
>> Man who fish in other man's well often catch crabs.
>> Man who fart in church sit in own pew.
>> Crowded elevator smell different to midget.
>> Virginity like bubble, one prick, all gone.
>> Passionate kiss, like spider web, leads to undoing of fly.
>> Man who leaps off cliff, jumps to conclusion.

The Tea Party Gets Something Right

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/01/the_tea_party_gets_something_r048873.php

Add another hardened conservative to the front against harsh mandatory-minimum prison sentences: Texas Republican Ted Cruz.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 yesterday to approve a bill that would, among other things, slash mandatory-minimum sentences for federal drug crimes in half and curb the runaway growth of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

Cruz signed on as a sponsor of the bill at the last minute yesterday. It’s an important boost to the conservative contingent lining up behind sentencing reform, whose highest-profile members so far have been Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul. Arizona Republican Jeff Flake also voted for the measure yesterday.

To be sure, the crime warriors of the 1980s got their licks in, too. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley got three new mandatory minimums attached to the bill before it moved to a final vote. But the momentum is clearly on the side of the left-right alliance of lawmakers who back sentencing reform, validating President Barack Obama’s approach of keeping a low profile on the issue.

when one makes a last minute decision on something they have been fence walking i would think Cruz T-P guy would be considering privatization and mininizing sentences on their premier stocking practice would kinda eat away at profits, less heads less bucks.

i also notice republicans hitching up to different Progressive ideas IMO trying to brown nose the public into thinking change is happening for them don't get fooled again, once you let them in they leave all promises at the door outside remember 2010 jobs promise got one from them yet?

That policy remains wise, even if it may disappoint liberal critics. As Steve Teles and I have argued, the most important development in crime politics over the last decade is that conservatives are developing their own, authentic ideology opposing mass incarceration. Cultivating this sentiment is critical, because conservative support will be indispensable if we are to make any deep dents in our 2-million strong prison population. Support from the likes of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz is the best insurance against Grassley-style tougher-than-thou posturing.

this is another republican smoke a mirrors, they have never tried to do anything for the country or it's people, now after two losses they decide to act more Progressive?  nah watch their ads and whack a moles they are the ones who really let us in on the mindset we don't see, the whole world is a stage and republicans are just playing a part, break a leg, seriously all of you break both legs and arms spines would be good concussions acceptable but just get out the way and let America be what it claims it is not what you have made it.

this is not by accident but by design they are still the hateful bigots they will always be take a hint from their guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Screw U: How For-Profit Colleges Rip You Off

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/for-profit-college-student-debt

The folks who walked through Tressie McMillan Cottom's door at an ITT Technical Institute campus in North Carolina were desperate. They had graduated from struggling high schools in low-income neighborhoods. They'd worked crappy jobs. Many were single mothers determined to make better lives for their children. "We blocked off a corner, and that's where we would put the car seats and the strollers," she recalls. "They would bring their babies with them and we'd encourage them to do so, because this is about building motivation and urgency."

McMillan Cottom now studies education issues at the University of California-Davis' Center for Poverty Research, but back then her job was to sign up people who'd stopped in for information, often after seeing one of the TV ads in which ITT graduates rave about recession-proof jobs. The idea was to prey on their anxieties—and to close the deal fast. Her title was "enrollment counselor," but she felt uncomfortable calling herself one, because she quickly realized she couldn't act in the best interest of the students. "I was told explicitly that we don't enroll and we don't admit: We are a sales force."

After six months at ITT Tech, McMillan Cottom quit. That same day, she called up every one of the students she'd enrolled and gave them the phone number for the local community college.

i hope she didn't sign a non-disclose form although what she did is patriotic it would also be illegal if that form were signed, business has all kinds of unscrupulous tactics to cover their butts while ripping yours. 

don't know if there is but there should be some kind of anti trust act that covers students such as the one republicans are trying to kill "CONSUMER REGULATORY"

The folks who walked through Tressie McMillan Cottom's door at an ITT Technical Institute campus in North Carolina were desperate. They had graduated from struggling high schools in low-income neighborhoods. They'd worked crappy jobs. Many were single mothers determined to make better lives for their children. "We blocked off a corner, and that's where we would put the car seats and the strollers," she recalls. "They would bring their babies with them and we'd encourage them to do so, because this is about building motivation and urgency."

McMillan Cottom now studies education issues at the University of California-Davis' Center for Poverty Research, but back then her job was to sign up people who'd stopped in for information, often after seeing one of the TV ads in which ITT graduates rave about recession-proof jobs. The idea was to prey on their anxieties—and to close the deal fast. Her title was "enrollment counselor," but she felt uncomfortable calling herself one, because she quickly realized she couldn't act in the best interest of the students. "I was told explicitly that we don't enroll and we don't admit: We are a sales force."

After six months at ITT Tech, McMillan Cottom quit. That same day, she called up every one of the students she'd enrolled and gave them the phone number for the local community college.

i hope she didn't sign a non-disclose form although what she did is patriotic it would also be illegal if that form were signed, business has all kinds of unscrupulous tactics to cover their butts while ripping yours. 

don't know if there is but there should be some kind of anti trust act that covers students such as the one republicans are trying to kill "CONSUMER REGULATORY"

With 147 campuses and more than 60,000 students nationwide, ITT Educational Services(which operates both ITT Tech and the smaller Daniel Webster College) is one of the largest companies in the burgeoning for-profit college industry, which now enrolls up to 13 percentof higher-education students. ITT is also the most profitable of the big industry players: Its revenue has nearly doubled over the past seven years, closing in on $1.3 billion last year, when CEO Kevin Modany's compensation topped $8 million.

this is the thing that gets most people you pay exhorbitant fees to get a specialized education but instead you get cripled before you enter the work force only difference in them and named colleges is the tuition price.

A 2012 investigation led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) singled out ITT for employing "some of the most disturbing recruiting tactics among the companies examined." A former ITT recruiter told the Senate education committee that she used and taught a process called the "pain funnel," in which admissions officers would ask students increasingly probing questions about where their lives were going wrong. Properly used, she said, it would "bring a prospect to their inner child, an emotional place intended to have the prospect say, 'Yes, I will enroll.'"

For-profit schools recruit heavily in low-income communities, and most students finance their education with a mix of federal Pell grants and federal student loans. But government-backed student loans max out at $12,500 per school year, and tuition at for-profits can go much higher; at ITT Tech it runs up to $25,000. What's more, for-profit colleges can only receive 90 percent of their revenue from government money. For the remaining 10 percent, they count on veterans—GI Bill money counts as outside funds—as well as scholarships and private loans.

 After students maxed out their federal grants and loans, there was typically an outstanding tuition balance of several thousand dollars. Jennifer says she was given weekly reports detailing how much money students on her roster owed. She would pull them from class and present them with a stark choice: get kicked out of school or make a payment on the spot.

is it any wonder why Americans are so far behind every othe country in academics, the educational institutions are not trying to educate they are as advertised "FOR PROFIT" at your expense.

Jennifer says the career services office at her campus wasn't much help; students told her they were simply given a printout from Monster.com. (ITT says its career counselors connect students with a range of job services and also help them write résumés, find leads, and arrange interviews.) By the time she was laid off, Jennifer believed the college "left students in worse situations than they were to begin with."

It's not just whistleblowers who are complaining about ITT. There's an entire website,myittexperience.com, dedicated to stories from disappointed alumni. That's how we found Margie Donaldson, a 38-year-old who says her dream has always been to get a college degree and work in corporate America: "Especially being a little black girl in the city of Detroit, [a degree] was everything to me."

Donaldson was making nearly $80,000 packing parts at Chrysler when the company, struggling to survive the recession, offered her a buyout. She decided to use it to get the college degree that she never finished 13 years before. Five years later, she is $75,000 in debt and can't find a full-time job despite her B.A. in criminal justice from ITT.

i might have missed it but didn't see anything about the caliber of education one receives from these grifters.

10 Obamacare Facts You Need to Know After 4 Months

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/01/10-obamacare-facts-you-need-to-know-after-4-months.aspx

Following three years of planned implementation, Obamacare's state and federally run health exchanges have been open for business for four months as of today. 

The results, as you might imagine, have been mixed with the glitch-filled October and November months acting as a complete night-and-day to the robust enrollment figures we've witnessed since the start of December and through the entirety of January.

As you may have also suspected, these bifurcated results have also brought a number of wildly pessimistic and optimistic claims regarding Obamacare's future into the limelight. 

But, rather than stew on the countless opinions and prognostications associated with Obamacare, I prefer to instead dwell on the facts surrounding Obamacare's implementation in these early months.

one very important thing to remember about info concerning ACA you will get an influx of extremely negative misreadings by republicans you can generally identify those as they echo doom and gloom and are extraordinarily damning with no redemption.

 3. The U.S. uninsured rate dropped 1.2% ... in a month!

5. Not enough young adults are signing up.

7. Obamacare opposition is at an all-time high.

9. CGI Group is out as Healthcare.gov's primary architect. 

i understand unwilligess of the younger people they think "i never get sick", health care covers accidents as well those things young people get into because they think they are invulnerable or just unlucky. the day will come when they are in the position of their younger generation doing the same for them, what will their attitude be?

Only Obama Can Block the Keystone Pipeline Now

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/keystone-xl-its-just-obama-now

The decision on whether or not to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, has always been President Obama's to make. 

But the environmental stakes are so high—leansen ding climate scientist James Hais fond of referring to the pipeline as "game over for the climate" because it would promote the extraction of one of the dirtiest kinds of oil—that a decision has been delayed for the last few years as the State Department carries out a review of the project's likely environmental impact.

That wait ended today, as State released its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The report says the annual carbon emissions from producing, refining, and burning the oil the pipeline would move (830,000 barrels per day) would add up to 147-168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

 (By contrast, the typical coal-fired power plant produces 3.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually.) That sounds like a lot, but the report comes with an important caveat:

Approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.

agreed as long as there are no leaks, explosions or sabotage that can not be predicted or prepared for unless they put repair units every 100 yards to be assured of being at the site of exposure.

In other words, according to the report, those emissions are likely to happen whether the president approves Keystone XL or not. That's an important distinction, given that President Obama has already said that in order to gain approval, the pipeline must not increase carbon emissions.

But there are other ways to move oil: For example, the report mentions that "rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if pipelines are delayed or not constructed." Rail transit is already underway;

yesterday an ExxonMobil exec said the company had begun to use trains to pack oil out of the tar sands (despite their pretty awful safety record). But if the oil is going to be extracted (and the emissions emitted) one way or another, the case for blocking the pipeline per se becomes less clear.

note, Exxon-Mobil is already using alternatives that fall prey to the same pitfalls as the pipeline.  there is no 100% safe mode of transport for oil or gas.  i don't envy Pres. that decision damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, big oil and gas, repulican will permeate the airwaves and internet with negatives as to a thumbs down.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-gas-company-pleads-guilty-fined-after-pipeline-leak/article16111852/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/18/2167151/every-plant-and-tree-died-huge-alberta-pipeline-spill-raises-safety-questions-as-keystone-decision-looms/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3231991/keystone-national/
pick a topic

Fox Omits Negative Effects Of Latest Republican Obamacare Alternative

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/31/fox-omits-negative-effects-of-latest-republican/197882

Fox News hyped a new GOP health care proposal as a viable alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that it claimed could reduce health care costs, lower premiums, and extend coverage more than the ACA. But Fox omitted other analyses that found the new GOP proposal would allow insurance companies to discriminate against individuals with pre-existing conditions, reduce Medicaid expansion, and charge older Americans more for coverage.

On January 27, Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Richard Burr (R-NC)released their legislative proposal, The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act (or CARE), as an alternative to the ACA.

During the January 31 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox's chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel highlighted a friendly analysis of the CARE Act from an organization opened by former Congressional Budget Office director and McCain presidential campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Emanuel said that according to this study, the CARE Act would "reduce health care costs, lower premiums, and provide health care coverage to more Americans than Obamacare":

But other reports on the CARE Act have found that it may negatively affect many Americans with its stated goal of repealing the ACA. On the Washington Post's Wonkblog, Sarah Kilff reported that the GOP plan has "structural similarities to Obamacare," but would end the ACA's guarantee that insurance companies will cover individuals with pre-existing conditions:

The Republican proposal would do this in a more limited way: It would end pre-existing conditions limitations for those who remain continuously insured. That means if you lost your job and health insurance, and immediately purchased a plan on the individual market, your insurance company could not use your medical history to set prices. If your coverage did lapse, however, there would be the possibility of facing underwriting fees when purchasing an individual plan.

we knew when they announced it it would be flawed and only only serving a particular group, when you are a prejudiced entity you think in prejudiced ways there will always be Americans either left behind or ignored, it's the republican way.

Kliff also pointed out the GOP plan would limit Medicaid expansion to pregnant women and children living below the poverty line:

The Republican plan puts less emphasis on expanding Medicaid; Obamacare relies on that public program for half of the entire insurance expansion. The replacement plan would limit any Medicaid expansion to pregnant women and children living below the poverty line, and give states the option to decide whether to participate. And even then, those people would have more of a choice: They could decide whether to participate on Medicaid, or use a tax credit to buy private insurance. Under Obamacare, there isn't that option.

note this abomination directly excludes pregnant women and the children below the poverty line and their favorite returns the decision to the states, can you imagine the hell those red states will reign down on the excluded, ER's and..................  and more notable they vare trying to slip Ryan vouchers in the mix,  there isn't that option because it's a voucher wake up eveybody.

They could decide whether to participate on Medicaid, or use a tax credit to buy private insurance. Under Obamacare, there isn't that option.