While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[don]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Bill Curry, a former Clinton democrat, take on what his party needs to do . . .

One reason we know voters will embrace populism is that they already have. It’s what they thought they were getting with Obama. In 2008 Obama said he’d bail out homeowners, not just banks. He vowed to fight for a public option, raise the minimum wage and clean up Washington. He called whistle-blowers heroes and said he’d bar lobbyists from his staff. He was critical of drones and wary of the use of force to advance American interests. He spoke eloquently of the threats posed to individual privacy by a runaway national security state.

He turned out to be something else altogether. To blame Republicans ignores a glaring truth: Obama’s record is worst where they had little or no role to play. It wasn’t Republicans who prosecuted all those whistle-blowers and hired all those lobbyists; who authorized drone strikes or kept the NSA chugging along; who reneged on the public option, the minimum wage and aid to homeowners. It wasn’t even Republicans who turned a blind eye to Wall Street corruption and excessive executive compensation. It was Obama.

A populist revolt among Democrats is unlikely absent their reappraisal of Obama, which itself seems unlikely. Not since Robert Kennedy have Democrats been so personally invested in a public figure. Liberals fell hardest so it’s especially hard for them to admit he’s just not that into them. If they could walk away they might resume their relationship with Nader. Of course that won’t be easy.

Populism isn’t just liberalism on steroids; it too demands compromise. After any defeat, a party’s base consoles itself with the notion that if its candidates were pure they’d have won. It’s never true; most voters differ with both parties. Still, liberals dream of retaking Congress as the Tea Party dreams of retaking the White House: by being pure. Democratic elites are always up for compromise, but on the wrong issues. Rather than back GOP culture wars, as some do, or foreign wars, as many do, or big business, as nearly all do, they should back libertarians on privacy, small business on credit and middle-class families on taxes.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

+1
Thank you Shiny.
Yours is a voice of reason and obvious good will with concern for equity and the interests of all.

I'll second that.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I'll second that.

Thank you, gentlemen. That means a lot to me.

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Originally Posted by Woodsman I'll second that.

Thank you, gentlemen. That means a lot to me.

3rd.
VERY NICELY DONE, ms Shiny!

with an honorable mention to:

Bill Curry, a former Clinton democrat, take on what his party needs to do . . .

.. Still, liberals dream of retaking Congress as the Tea Party dreams of retaking the White House: by being pure. Democratic elites are always up for compromise, but on the wrong issues. Rather than back GOP culture wars, as some do, or foreign wars, as many do, or big business, as nearly all do, they should back libertarians on privacy, small business on credit and middle-class families on taxes.

and i remain
a 'small-r' type, formerly/proudly of The Live Free or Die State

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Bill Curry, a former Clinton democrat, take on what his party needs to do . . .

This is excellent. Thanks, don.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i still want to know whether hobby-lobby-decision supporters think christian scientists should be able to refuse to offer health insurance altogether? and if not, why not? and should jehovahs witnesses be able to exclude coverage for transfusions? and if not, why not? those are sincerely held religious beliefs.

i think these questions are being avoided because they show the contradictions between an employer-based healthcare system, which we have, and the newly awarded [by 5-4] ability of corporate "persons" to restrict health coverage based on the religious beliefs of their owners.

so. what are the answers? please enlighten me.

jk, you aren't utilizing language appropriately and that is probably why you are confused. The Hobby Lobby decision has restricted and denied absolutely nobody any health care coverage. No restrictions have been placed on what people can receive from insurance, and no control over one's health care coverage has been given to an employer as a result of this decision.

Why can't people see this decision for what it is? It is purely and entirely an exemption in a legal mandate for religious reasons. That's it. It's nothing more. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting any coverage they want. It doesn't restrict people employed by certain religious employers from receiving health care coverage. All this decision does is take the gun away from the head of employers on one of the thousands of legal mandates placed upon them. That's it.

If someone believes that all health insurance is against their religion, let them operate on that belief. What possible harm can come from that? So long as people are not defrauded and made to believe that they will receive health coverage from their employer when actually they will not, we are left with simple voluntary association. People will voluntarily work for no health coverage in innumerable circumstances, just as they would work for any wage rate from $0.00 to the current or any proposed minimum wage. There is no harm in allowing people to accept those deals, but there can be significant harm in making illegal the voluntary economic association between two consenting adults.

The people interested in controlling others and their health care decisions are those who rail against the Hobby Lobby decision. There is no logical reason to oppose the ruling if one accepts that people should be afforded the right to believe whatever they wish to believe and act accordingly.

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

jk, you aren't utilizing language appropriately and that is probably why you are confused. The Hobby Lobby decision has restricted and denied absolutely nobody any health care coverage. No restrictions have been placed on what people can receive from insurance, and no control over one's health care coverage has been given to an employer as a result of this decision.

Why can't people see this decision for what it is? It is purely and entirely an exemption in a legal mandate for religious reasons. That's it. It's nothing more. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting any coverage they want. It doesn't restrict people employed by certain religious employers from receiving health care coverage. All this decision does is take the gun away from the head of employers on one of the thousands of legal mandates placed upon them. That's it.

If someone believes that all health insurance is against their religion, let them operate on that belief. What possible harm can come from that? So long as people are not defrauded and made to believe that they will receive health coverage from their employer when actually they will not, we are left with simple voluntary association. People will voluntarily work for no health coverage in innumerable circumstances, just as they would work for any wage rate from $0.00 to the current or any proposed minimum wage. There is no harm in allowing people to accept those deals, but there can be significant harm in making illegal the voluntary economic association between two consenting adults.

The people interested in controlling others and their health care decisions are those who rail against the Hobby Lobby decision. There is no logical reason to oppose the ruling if one accepts that people should be afforded the right to believe whatever they wish to believe and act accordingly.

i can't quite tell is your post is meant as very dry satire. if not, i just want to point out that we don't live in an ayn rand novel, but in the real-life united states of america. i will add that this country is the only developed country in which the provision of health insurance is based on the choices provided by the employer. there is no other country with this curious arrangement, and this arrangement has consequences. thus there are mandates that employers over a certain size provide health care insurance, and that said insurance provide a certain minimum standard of coverage. hobby lobby has over $2billion/year in revenue, and a commensurate number of employees. as for voluntary association, i suggest you go down to your local unemployment office, and do a survey about how the people in line there conceive of their potential relationship with a currently non-existent employer. i'd really like to hear what they have to tell you.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

There is no logical reason to oppose the ruling if one accepts that people should be afforded the right to believe whatever they wish to believe and act accordingly.

The same court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans had no right to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies. In Employment Div. v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supremes ruled that The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.

Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and wrote that religious people had no presumptive exemption from general laws. As long as the law wasn't specifically directed against a religious group and was “neutral and generally applicable”—the Constitution offered no religious exemption. Little wonder so many seem confused about the court's logic in Hobby Lobby, inasmuch as they turned logic, the law and Constitution it on its head and inside out in order to get the outcomes they wanted. Whereas in 1990 no actual person (natural, God created entities in possession of divine spirit) has the right to exempt themselves from law based on claims of religious faith and practice, they now rule that fictional persons (corporations, dead and soulless creatures of law) indeed have the right to exempt themselves from laws based on claims of religion.

When the respondents were peyote eating Native Americans practicing their religion in private, the court thought there was every logical reason to place limits on persons acting on their religious beliefs when they were contrary to generally applied law. When respondents are rich, white, straight Christians who want to force relatively poor and powerless employees - never mind the whole of the country - to accommodate their their religions beliefs, they reverse themselves.

This case was never about religious freedom.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

The same court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans had no right to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies. In Employment Div. v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supremes ruled that The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.

Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and wrote that religious people had no presumptive exemption from general laws. As long as the law wasn't specifically directed against a religious group and was “neutral and generally applicable”—the Constitution offered no religious exemption. Little wonder so many seem confused about the court's logic in Hobby Lobby, inasmuch as they turned logic, the law and Constitution it on its head and inside out in order to get the outcomes they wanted. Whereas in 1990 no actual person (natural, God created entities in possession of divine spirit) has the right to exempt themselves from law based on claims of religious faith and practice, they now rule that fictional persons (corporations, dead and soulless creatures of law) indeed have the right to exempt themselves from laws based on claims of religion.

When the respondents were peyote eating Native Americans practicing their religion in private, the court thought there was every logical reason to place limits on persons acting on their religious beliefs when they were contrary to generally applied law. When respondents are rich, white, straight Christians who want to force relatively poor and powerless employees - never mind the whole of the country - to accommodate their their religions beliefs, they reverse themselves.

This case was never about religious freedom.

Beautifully stated, Woodsman.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Of course this is not the same court as 24 years ago. Plus with public viewpoints on marijuana having become far more liberal, there is a decent possibility a court today might rule for The Native Americans
use of Peyote in religious ceremonies.

We have to be careful of the apples and oranges of past court decisions applied to today's.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Of course this is not the same court as 24 years ago. Plus with public viewpoints on marijuana having become far more liberal, there is a decent possibility a court today might rule for The Native Americans
use of Peyote in religious ceremonies.

We have to be careful of the apples and oranges of past court decisions applied to today's.

Thanks you, vt. Of course, you're correct to make the point. Nevertheless the court has become more conservative, not less, in the past 24 years.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Yes the court is more conservative, but there is a swing vote that could see this issue as religious rights that have been denied, and rule in favor of Native Americans. I feel a clear majority of Americans would agree, as would I.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

The same court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans had no right to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies. In Employment Div. v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supremes ruled that The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.

Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and wrote that religious people had no presumptive exemption from general laws. As long as the law wasn't specifically directed against a religious group and was “neutral and generally applicable”—the Constitution offered no religious exemption. Little wonder so many seem confused about the court's logic in Hobby Lobby, inasmuch as they turned logic, the law and Constitution it on its head and inside out in order to get the outcomes they wanted. Whereas in 1990 no actual person (natural, God created entities in possession of divine spirit) has the right to exempt themselves from law based on claims of religious faith and practice, they now rule that fictional persons (corporations, dead and soulless creatures of law) indeed have the right to exempt themselves from laws based on claims of religion.

When the respondents were peyote eating Native Americans practicing their religion in private, the court thought there was every logical reason to place limits on persons acting on their religious beliefs when they were contrary to generally applied law. When respondents are rich, white, straight Christians who want to force relatively poor and powerless employees - never mind the whole of the country - to accommodate their their religions beliefs, they reverse themselves.

This case was never about religious freedom.

Past precedent or legal precedent as a concept or contention is a very dangerous thing, I will agree. Courts by their nature lack human character traits like the courage to do what is right, citing precedence. However, like all human institutions, courts can sometimes do the right thing.

You are wrong about the justification for this ruling. It is about religious liberty, pure and simple, or at least that's how the majority on the court who ruled perceived it to be. Citing a different court's decision doesn't discount that motivation in the slightest.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i can't quite tell is your post is meant as very dry satire. if not, i just want to point out that we don't live in an ayn rand novel, but in the real-life united states of america. i will add that this country is the only developed country in which the provision of health insurance is based on the choices provided by the employer. there is no other country with this curious arrangement, and this arrangement has consequences. thus there are mandates that employers over a certain size provide health care insurance, and that said insurance provide a certain minimum standard of coverage. hobby lobby has over $2billion/year in revenue, and a commensurate number of employees. as for voluntary association, i suggest you go down to your local unemployment office, and do a survey about how the people in line there conceive of their potential relationship with a currently non-existent employer. i'd really like to hear what they have to tell you.

I am in agreement that the curious employment-linked health insurance arrangement is a terrible setup. If able, I would end all policies which incentivize that link over other arrangements immediately.

We do live in the real world, and that is why we cannot afford to burden employers and potential employers with unwieldy requirements just to hire someone to sweep the floors or any other menial job, leave alone the fulfilling careers changing the world. Better someone find employment without a health insurance program than to find no employment at all. Do you disagree with that basic premise?

Again, what possible harm can come from allowing people to do what they choose to do, provided that choice is not to harm another? Failing to answer makes me question your sincerity.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

...You are wrong about the justification for this ruling. It is about religious liberty, pure and simple, or at least that's how the majority on the court who ruled perceived it to be. Citing a different court's decision doesn't discount that motivation in the slightest.

Reminds me of a prayer a teacher of mine once wrote:

“Deliver me from men who are without doubt. Doubt makes a man decent."

Amen.