Bio not provided
So when McDonald's moves to automate 90% of its jobs sooner rather than later we know where we can point the blame.
21 hours, 15 minutes ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118893/mcdonalds-ruling-obamas-nlrb-big-win-low-wage-workers
@dasimon And let me add that the ineffectiveness of Gruber/the Democrats' strategy to politically coerce states into creating the exchanges in no way impacts the intent of the law--the author explained that his intent was to coerce, although his strategy for doing so was a joke.
5 days, 19 hours ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake
@dasimon We have different versions of "better." Your version of better--Venezuelan socialism--is not my version. The best version of the ACA would have been it being thrust into the dustbin of history.
@dasimon How many times do I have to explain this to you? Obamacare was formally launched in October 2013. The IRS finalized its interpretation in 2012. There was no reason for a governor to be up in arms. Even so, a federal tax credit to an individual tax payer is of little concern to a state governor. I don't hear my governor comment on the federal earned income tax credit. My governor has enough problems to deal with to care about what my personal 1040 looks like.
Your position is patently absurd.
@dasimon It's not ambiguous. The author of this segment of the bill explained his reasoning twice in 2012--the bill read like it did to coerce. This is not ambiguous.
@dasimon The stakes turned out to be tiny but that's not what the Democrats thought. Gruber stated clear as day that he believed there would be a major political backlash against Republicans for costing their people tax credits. The fact that his political ploy didn't work has no bearing on what the bill's intention was. The intention of the bill was to coerce states--the author said so!
To your other points--there WAS talk of this on both sides. The fact that you didn't hear about it isn't relevant. This was a big thing on Capitol Hill--the House of Representatives completed an investigation on this topic in February 2014; it was a big deal at the IRS; and the lawsuits have been pending since 2011.
5 days, 20 hours ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake
@dasimon Here's a novel concept--if a bill comes out of the legislative process ugly and untenable then don't vote for the final version. It's not the fault of Republicans that the atrocious ACA was passed through Congress and signed by the President. We did everything in our power to prevent this thing from seeing the light of day.
@dasimon And let me add that the House conducted an extensive investigation into this topic (its findings were released in February 2014). The investigation found that the IRS originally agreed with the Republicans' interpretation of the bill until an IRS official saw that there were legal challenges brewing over this very topic.
@dasimon 1) The bill is so huge and convoluted that an average person doesn't understand the bill or its impact; 2) because the IRS in 2011 and 2012 wrote their interpretation that was favorable to the Democrats' position, thus nullifying any negative impact to the bill; 3) there was no deafening silence--there were and are several lawsuits regarding this very topic.
@freedom217 It is truly breathtaking that the socialists are actually trying to blame the Republicans(!) for all of the bill's mistakes. It's amazing. Not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the bill but somehow the bill is the Republicans' fault. Wow....
@dasimon He wrote the bill on behalf of Congress! What don't you get about that?! The authorship of this portion of the bill was literally delegated to him. It's like if a company hired a consultant to build their IT infrastructure allowing the consultant to speak to the public to explain what he built. The "consultant" explained the purpose of the wording of the bill--to coerce states POLITICALLY to create their own exchanges. It's plain. As. Day.
In addition, Gruber has filed briefs in these legal challenges on behalf of the government (the defendant). Obviously the government considers his expertise and understanding of the bill to be key to interpreting the meaning. That's why what he said in 2012--twice--is such a big deal. Both sides understand that his interpretation of the bill is key.
@dasimon What? None of what you're saying makes any sense. If Congress didn't know what was in the bill how could Gruber speak on their behalf? Nancy Pelosi specifically said that we need to pass the bill to see what's in it. The bill was 11.6 MILLION words and was edited at the 11th hour and passed via reconciliation in the Senate. There are hundreds of things that Congress didn't understand in the bill.
As far as states not suing over the tax credits, why would a state--run by persons who opposed the ACA--care if the tiny fraction of their citizens who utilize the Obamacare exchanges receive federal tax credits? The states' attorneys general probably wouldn't even have legal standing to sue even if they did care. The coercive Medicaid expansion, on the other hand, directly impacted a huge portion of states' budgets.
@dasimon What you're saying defies logic. Why would a state's attorney general who opposes the ACA care if a tiny segment of its citizens who utilized the Obamacare exchanges receive tax credits? It's entirely different than the coercive Medicaid expansion requirement which directly impacted states' budgets.
@dasimon @budhiser Gruber was one of the chief authors of the bill! He's the world's foremost expert on the ACA! What Gruber thought of the bill IS what Congress thought of the bill.
@dasimon @astyro1 @hannstv Gruber was one of the chief architects of the ACA. The ACA is nearly 11.6 million words--I'd guess that the typical Congressman had no idea what the bill said. Gruber is literally the world's foremost expert on the ACA. He laid out in the clearest of words--twice--the reasoning for why the bill was written the way it was--to coerce states into creating their own exchanges. Any other interpretation is self delusion or just cognitive dissonance.
@dasimon @FreedomFan You mean the bill was so unpopular and so opposed by the public that the GOP won a Massachusetts senate race?
5 days, 21 hours ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake
@dasimon @LeviathanLeap The average Congressman had no idea what was in the bill or how it would work. Gruber was one of the core authors of the bill. He was interpreting the thoughts of the author of the ACA to the crowds he spoke to.
Syracuse and Pitt are BOTH paying the full exit fee. Louisville paid the full exit fee in the 1990s and are in 2013. A&M and Missouri both paid what they were legally obligated to--the new, larger exit fee wasn't in force yet. This is completely and utterly and insane! Yes! A simple Google search will confirm the settlements and prove that you didn't take 2 seconds to actually google search! It's like talking to a brick wall!
1 year, 6 months ago on Big Bang Theories: The Countdown To Super-Conferences (Part 4)
I don't know what you're talking about. WVU paid $20 million to exit early, which is way more than the $5-7 million actual exit fee. You're provably wrong! I just don't understand where you dreamers get this crap.
The exit fee wasn't subjec to any "reasonable time". It went into effect "immediately". This, too, was widely reported and easily researched to be the case.
This is wrong and has been spoken to on MANY occassions. The exit fee hadn't taken effect yet when Texas A&M and Missouri left. They didn't "negotiate" the exit fee amount down--they weren't yet legally bound by it. This is easily provable and was WIDELY reported.
As I stated above, can you give me a single example in the history of college sports where an exit fee has been reduced? Because I can give you a dozen examples of where it's either been enforced in totality or the fee has been increased. I'll be waiting to see this fantasy that you can concoct.
Cool. And you can show me a single time in history where an exit fee has been reduced? [grabs popcorn]. I'll be waiting for this response anxiously, since never in the history of college sport has an exit fee been reduced. In fact, we have many cases where it's been increased so that the program can leave early. NEVER, EVER been reduced. As a Hokie, I'm well aware of how this operates since we were in a battle over exit fees with Louisville, which we won. The precedent is on the ACC's side overwhelmingly.
I'm also curious as to this monetary difference. The B1G is talking really big but still has nothing in place to prove its big talk. In fact, right now the B1G is in a showdown with local cable companies over the Big Ten Network. The huge payout is predicated upon the DC and NY/NJ area cable companies charging almost $1 per household for the Big Ten Network. It's just too bad that nobody in Washington, D.C. cares about the Maryland Terrapins enough to make a dent in the cable company revenues. I'm quite certain that Comcast/Xfinitiy/Verizon, etc. have no interest in bargaining with the B1G over Maryland Terrapin sports.
This is wrong on virtually every account. This is simply completely wrong and based on nothing whatsoever. I suggest you check out Techsideline.com and read the extensive article on ACC expansion.
The ACC isn't going anywhere! Geesh. Mr. SEC really must have no ACC contacts or connections not to get this. First of all, virtually everyone believes Louisville is an upgrade from Maryland. Other than Duke, the entire ACC was happy to see Maryland, a completely worthless program from a TV revenue standpoint, leave. Secondly, during the time the ACC was replacing Maryland with Louisville, there was talk of a raid on the ACC. It was widely reported that Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech were all the most active in trying to keep the ACC together. NONE of those schools want to move from the ACC and none will move unless forced by another team moving first. That means only Clemson and FSU moving would cause UNC, UVa or VT to bolt for another conference. FSU and Clemson have no way of getting into the SEC at this time due to duplicate markets. Clemson and FSU have already strongly considered the Big XII and it was decided that the ACC is a much better fit for them long term. This means that at this point, the ACC is only in danger of losing a single program--Georgia Tech. GT isn't nearly a strong enough program to cause an exodus from the ACC.
Once the ACC wins its suit against Maryland for the exit fee--and there is no precedent in the history of college sports indicating that it won't win--it will ensure the ACC is gong no where fast. It's basic logic.
@NW18 Wow, so many fallacies in this post that I can only briefly hit on a few before getting back to work.
1) Any active, ranking Republican would have been involved loosely in the Bush administration the way any active, ranking Democrat would have been involved in the Clinton administration. With hundreds of appointees and thousands of underlings, you can't ascribe a man's entire belief system to who he loosely worked for. Holding a secondary or tertiary role in the Bush administration does not automatically make one a neo-con--it makes that person a long-time Republican Party activist/participant with good credentials.
2) Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al are rooting for Romney the way Chavez in Venezuela and Putin in Russia are pulling hard for Obama--Romney is part of the right the way Obama is part of the left, including on domestic policy. It's normal that you would have Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. pulling for Romney--they're Republicans and party men like Clinton is a party man.
3) Obama's foreign policy is remarkably similar to George Bush's. In fact, other than rhetoric, there is no marked difference between the 2 foreign policies. One could even say that Obama is as much of a neo-con as Bush, in some instances even more so.
1 year, 9 months ago on Conversation @ http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/30/clearing_the_air