The new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
White christian males have done a lot of good though. 
election was
in NV. This isn't surprising. Not a fan of appeasing any demo but maybe a certain one will calm down now that they have their ball back. I naively thought this country worked based on a realistic and modern concern for welfare but after 112, I've lost a lot of faith. I'm 26 
2016 needs to be the focus for the broken down folks and not for the executive spot.
And how many of these folks are lying to make papa proud? Jw.
election was
in NV. This isn't surprising. Not a fan of appeasing any demo but maybe a certain one will calm down now that they have their ball back. I naively thought this country worked based on a realistic and modern concern for welfare but after 112, I've lost a lot of faith. I'm 26 2016 needs to be the focus for the broken down folks and not for the executive spot.
And how many of these folks are lying to make papa proud? Jw.
imagine a majority female congress
At least their long term absences can be attributed to monthly flow and pregnancy rather than notgivingafukk-itis.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,072
- Reputation
- 7,977
- Daps
- 118,548
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Bu-bu-but the Civil Rights Movement let us down..............
.............so, my vote don't matter.
.............so, my vote don't matter.
Ethnic Vagina Finder
The Great Paper Chaser
A true representation of racial and ethnic diversity in America 
From an economic stand point, cac's are the majority.
From an economic stand point, cac's are the majority.
again
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Surprise there wasn't a thread about the last months (December 2014) omnibus bill they passed before they went home for the holidays............ It was 
the stuff that is in there....let me find some links
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...rillion-derivatives-us-taxpayers-are-now-hook [Again, taxpayers on hook for $303 trillion in derivatives, same thing the TAARP in 2008 was about]
Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/13/2014 00:52 -0400
Courtesy of the Cronybus(sic) last minute passage, government was provided a quid-pro-quo $1.1 trillion spending allowance with Wall Street's blessing in exchange for assuring banks that taxpayers would be on the hook for yet another bailout, as a result of the swaps push-out provision, after incorporating explicit Citigroup language that allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by these contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html [Congress voted itself the ability to receive annual single donor donations of $324,000, up from what was $32,000]
The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.
The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://time.com/money/3630348/congress-pension-cuts-retirees/ [Allowed Companies to Cut Retirees Pensions]
Wall Street banks, automakers and insurance giants got bailouts during the economic meltdown that started in 2008. But when it comes to the pensions of retired truck drivers, construction workers and mine workers, it seems that enough is enough.
The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill moving through Congress this week adopts “Solutions Not Bailouts,” a plan to shore up struggling multiemployer pension funds—traditional defined benefit plans jointly funded by groups of employers in industries like construction, trucking, mining and food retailing.
A bailout, it is not. The centerpiece is a provision that would open the door to cutting current beneficiaries’ benefits, a retirement policy taboo and a potential disaster for retirees on fixed incomes.
Developed by the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP), a coalition of multiemployer pension plan sponsors and some major unions, the plan addresses a looming implosion of multiemployer pension plans. Ten million workers are covered by these plans, with 1.5 million of them in roughly 200 plans that are in danger of failing over the next two decades. Two large plans are believed to be much closer to failure—the Teamsters’ Central States fund and the United Mine Workers of America fund.
.
the stuff that is in there....let me find some linkshttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...rillion-derivatives-us-taxpayers-are-now-hook [Again, taxpayers on hook for $303 trillion in derivatives, same thing the TAARP in 2008 was about]
Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/13/2014 00:52 -0400
Courtesy of the Cronybus(sic) last minute passage, government was provided a quid-pro-quo $1.1 trillion spending allowance with Wall Street's blessing in exchange for assuring banks that taxpayers would be on the hook for yet another bailout, as a result of the swaps push-out provision, after incorporating explicit Citigroup language that allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by these contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html [Congress voted itself the ability to receive annual single donor donations of $324,000, up from what was $32,000]
The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.
The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://time.com/money/3630348/congress-pension-cuts-retirees/ [Allowed Companies to Cut Retirees Pensions]
Wall Street banks, automakers and insurance giants got bailouts during the economic meltdown that started in 2008. But when it comes to the pensions of retired truck drivers, construction workers and mine workers, it seems that enough is enough.
The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill moving through Congress this week adopts “Solutions Not Bailouts,” a plan to shore up struggling multiemployer pension funds—traditional defined benefit plans jointly funded by groups of employers in industries like construction, trucking, mining and food retailing.
A bailout, it is not. The centerpiece is a provision that would open the door to cutting current beneficiaries’ benefits, a retirement policy taboo and a potential disaster for retirees on fixed incomes.
Developed by the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP), a coalition of multiemployer pension plan sponsors and some major unions, the plan addresses a looming implosion of multiemployer pension plans. Ten million workers are covered by these plans, with 1.5 million of them in roughly 200 plans that are in danger of failing over the next two decades. Two large plans are believed to be much closer to failure—the Teamsters’ Central States fund and the United Mine Workers of America fund.
.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
VIDEO: Republican Governor Caught On Tape Demolishing The Legal Case Against Obamacare
BY IAN MILLHISER
POSTED ON JANUARY 7, 2015 AT 11:14 AM
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JACQUELYN MARTIN
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) spent “nearly two years” studying the Affordable Care Act, according to a live interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal in 2013, and what he discovered was that the central claim in a lawsuit seeking to convince the Supreme Court to gut Obamacare is wrong. Though Walker’s statement was not made in reference to this lawsuit, his understanding of the law has special significance in light of a particular constitutional doctrine at issue in this case, and his reading of the Affordable Care Act directly contradicts that of the lawyers seeking to undermine the law.
The Affordable Care Act gives states a choice: they can either set up an exchange where consumers can buy subsidized insurance plans or they can elect to have the federal government set up this exchange for them. Consumers with income below a certain level qualify for tax credits to help them afford this insurance. A case called King v. Burwell, however, asks the justices to cut off these tax credits in states with federally-run exchanges — an effort that could potentially collapse the individual insurance markets in those states if it succeeds. The plaintiffs’ premise in King is that Obamacare was never intended to offer credits to people in states with federally-run exchanges. Indeed, by reading one passage of the Affordable Care Act out of context, they claim that the law unambiguously states that only state-run exchanges are allowed to provide tax credits.
But that’s not the conclusion Walker reached after spending a couple of years considering the question. Rather, in his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Walker explains that there is no practical difference whatsoever between state-run and federally-run exchanges:
WALKER: When I looked — and I spent nearly two years looking at this . . . I visited [Washington DC], as a new governor in December in 2010. As part of that visit I met with Secretary Sebelius, the head of the federal department of HHS, and have spent the last two years with my team, my administration, my cabinet, working with the federal government trying to fully understand and comprehend what it meant to my state and other states. And it was clear! It’s a SINO, “state in name only.”
This really isn’t an exchange that the states run or even run in a partnership. The federal government determines what’s going to be covered. How it’s going to be covered. And the only distinction is whether or not a state can say that they’re running it, put up a sign that says they are running it. But, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership. And so I said, if I can’t run it, if I don’t have control over it, why would I take the responsibility of explaining to people something that I don’t have any control over.
Watch it:
To be sure, Walker emphasizes the fact that he elected not to have Wisconsin run its own health exchange because he felt that he would have insufficient control over how the exchange was operated. He goes on to assert his philosophic view that “any time you have a chance [sic] between the state running something or the federal government running something, we’re always much better off having the states run it.” In the process, however, he refutes the central thrust of the plaintiffs’ argument in King. Tax credits should not be denied to people in states like Wisconsin with federally-run exchanges because, in Walker’s words, “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange[] or a state exchange.”
Nor is this a conclusion that Walker reached without carefully reviewing the question. To the contrary, Walker lays out the breadth of his nearly two-year inquiry into the differences between federally-run and state-run exchanges. He met with the most senior Obama Administration official entrusted with health policy, and he had an entire team of advisers working to determine whether there were practical differences between the two types of exchanges. The answer, in his own words, is “clear.” There is no substantive difference between the two under Obamacare.
Walker’s discovery matters for two reasons. Under the Supreme Court’s decision inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, judges give an extraordinary degree of deference to a federal agency’s reading of a statute. Unless the agency’s reading of the law conflicts with “the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” courts will defer to the agency’s legal interpretation so long as it is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” In order to conclude that the King plaintiffs’ reading of Obamacare is correct, one has to believe that a governor who is openly hostile towards the Affordable Care Act spent nearly two years studying the law along with a team of legal and policy advisers, and yet he somehow missed the fact that the law gave him the power to cut off one of the most important provisions of the law in his state. That hardly indicates that the plaintiffs’ reading comports with “the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”
Additionally, Walker’s statement raises serious constitutional doubts about the plaintiffs’ reading of the law. The lawyers seeking to gut Obamacare argue that the tax credits are part of “a variety of ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ to induce states to establish Exchanges voluntarily.” Yet, when the federal government conditions the payment of federal money on states taking a particular action, such conditions are unconstitutional “if a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it.” As the Supreme Court explained in 2006, the question of whether a state is able to ascertain whether federal money comes with strings attached must be evaluated “from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept . . . the obligations that go with those funds.”
And yet, here we have Scott Walker explaining that, after spending two years studying the Affordable Care Act, he was completely unaware that one of the alleged “carrots” and “sticks” described by the King plaintiffs exists.
Walker’s Wall Street Journal interview, in other words, devastates the legal case against Obamacare. It reveals that a man who was tremendously motivated to find flaws in the law’s framework wasn’t even able to spot the alleged flaw identified by the King plaintiffs, and it raises grave constitutional doubts about these plaintiffs’ legal theory.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...demolishing-the-legal-case-against-obamacare/
video in link
BY IAN MILLHISER
POSTED ON JANUARY 7, 2015 AT 11:14 AM
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JACQUELYN MARTIN
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) spent “nearly two years” studying the Affordable Care Act, according to a live interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal in 2013, and what he discovered was that the central claim in a lawsuit seeking to convince the Supreme Court to gut Obamacare is wrong. Though Walker’s statement was not made in reference to this lawsuit, his understanding of the law has special significance in light of a particular constitutional doctrine at issue in this case, and his reading of the Affordable Care Act directly contradicts that of the lawyers seeking to undermine the law.
The Affordable Care Act gives states a choice: they can either set up an exchange where consumers can buy subsidized insurance plans or they can elect to have the federal government set up this exchange for them. Consumers with income below a certain level qualify for tax credits to help them afford this insurance. A case called King v. Burwell, however, asks the justices to cut off these tax credits in states with federally-run exchanges — an effort that could potentially collapse the individual insurance markets in those states if it succeeds. The plaintiffs’ premise in King is that Obamacare was never intended to offer credits to people in states with federally-run exchanges. Indeed, by reading one passage of the Affordable Care Act out of context, they claim that the law unambiguously states that only state-run exchanges are allowed to provide tax credits.
But that’s not the conclusion Walker reached after spending a couple of years considering the question. Rather, in his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Walker explains that there is no practical difference whatsoever between state-run and federally-run exchanges:
WALKER: When I looked — and I spent nearly two years looking at this . . . I visited [Washington DC], as a new governor in December in 2010. As part of that visit I met with Secretary Sebelius, the head of the federal department of HHS, and have spent the last two years with my team, my administration, my cabinet, working with the federal government trying to fully understand and comprehend what it meant to my state and other states. And it was clear! It’s a SINO, “state in name only.”
This really isn’t an exchange that the states run or even run in a partnership. The federal government determines what’s going to be covered. How it’s going to be covered. And the only distinction is whether or not a state can say that they’re running it, put up a sign that says they are running it. But, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership. And so I said, if I can’t run it, if I don’t have control over it, why would I take the responsibility of explaining to people something that I don’t have any control over.
Watch it:
To be sure, Walker emphasizes the fact that he elected not to have Wisconsin run its own health exchange because he felt that he would have insufficient control over how the exchange was operated. He goes on to assert his philosophic view that “any time you have a chance [sic] between the state running something or the federal government running something, we’re always much better off having the states run it.” In the process, however, he refutes the central thrust of the plaintiffs’ argument in King. Tax credits should not be denied to people in states like Wisconsin with federally-run exchanges because, in Walker’s words, “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange[] or a state exchange.”
Nor is this a conclusion that Walker reached without carefully reviewing the question. To the contrary, Walker lays out the breadth of his nearly two-year inquiry into the differences between federally-run and state-run exchanges. He met with the most senior Obama Administration official entrusted with health policy, and he had an entire team of advisers working to determine whether there were practical differences between the two types of exchanges. The answer, in his own words, is “clear.” There is no substantive difference between the two under Obamacare.
Walker’s discovery matters for two reasons. Under the Supreme Court’s decision inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, judges give an extraordinary degree of deference to a federal agency’s reading of a statute. Unless the agency’s reading of the law conflicts with “the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” courts will defer to the agency’s legal interpretation so long as it is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” In order to conclude that the King plaintiffs’ reading of Obamacare is correct, one has to believe that a governor who is openly hostile towards the Affordable Care Act spent nearly two years studying the law along with a team of legal and policy advisers, and yet he somehow missed the fact that the law gave him the power to cut off one of the most important provisions of the law in his state. That hardly indicates that the plaintiffs’ reading comports with “the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”
Additionally, Walker’s statement raises serious constitutional doubts about the plaintiffs’ reading of the law. The lawyers seeking to gut Obamacare argue that the tax credits are part of “a variety of ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ to induce states to establish Exchanges voluntarily.” Yet, when the federal government conditions the payment of federal money on states taking a particular action, such conditions are unconstitutional “if a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it.” As the Supreme Court explained in 2006, the question of whether a state is able to ascertain whether federal money comes with strings attached must be evaluated “from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept . . . the obligations that go with those funds.”
And yet, here we have Scott Walker explaining that, after spending two years studying the Affordable Care Act, he was completely unaware that one of the alleged “carrots” and “sticks” described by the King plaintiffs exists.
Walker’s Wall Street Journal interview, in other words, devastates the legal case against Obamacare. It reveals that a man who was tremendously motivated to find flaws in the law’s framework wasn’t even able to spot the alleged flaw identified by the King plaintiffs, and it raises grave constitutional doubts about these plaintiffs’ legal theory.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...demolishing-the-legal-case-against-obamacare/
video in link
isnt that cause they have to go back to their states?
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
What is the point, those numbers correlate with what the country looks like except for the gender aspect of it
IMO the problem with congress is their relative wealth
IMO the problem with congress is their relative wealth
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
I wasn't aware that 80% of the US population was white.
about 70% of america is white, so 80% is just 10% off, so congress being 80% white isnt far off,
the country is also 12 percent black, so congress being 10% black is also close to accurate
so it would seem the hispanic and asian numbers are off the mark..........and now we get to this whole "diversity", rainbow coalition", "people of color" gibberish wherein black people are in the front lines fighting for other people, spare me, is the number of hispanics and asians in congress an important issue to black people? we are not even going to open the can of warms of the ted cruz and marco rubio "hispanics", but im not seeing how these numbers are off the mark or anything to lose sleep over--except for the gender and wealth issues
anyways, poltics isnt where we need to focus on, we have gone as far as we can go in that field, the next thing is economics aka business aka capitalism
Last edited: