Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote:Holy Crap, that's like twice in a year Zarathud and I appear to be on the same page in a political discussion.

Lock the thread now before one of us goes off!

Now before you get too excited, the economy is the reason I'm supporting Hillary. She can't leave a legacy unless she helps get wages and living standards growing again. The irony is that she'll be picking up about where Bill left off (and before the Bush administration cratered the economy).

Zarathud wrote:Now before you get too excited, the economy is the reason I'm supporting Hillary. She can't leave a legacy unless she helps get wages and living standards growing again. The irony is that she'll be picking up about where Bill left off (and before the Bush administration cratered the economy).

And there we go. You had to ruin it.

Rip wrote:You owe a debt. Just Uncle Sam is covering it. He will be collecting a vig throughout your life.

IDK what a vig is, but it's a win-win if Uncle Sugar gets more taxes because he invested in my successful professional career. (Or it would be if I had chosen to have a successful professional career, but I had the good fortune to be in the last cohort before college became purely about career training. Take that, Uncle!)

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:You owe a debt. Just Uncle Sam is covering it. He will be collecting a vig throughout your life.

IDK what a vig is, but it's a win-win if Uncle Sugar gets more taxes because he invested in my successful professional career. (Or it would be if I had chosen to have a successful professional career, but I had the good fortune to be in the last cohort before college became purely about career training. Take that, Uncle!)

The interest to a loan on the street or through a bookie. It is common to not pay back the principle but have to pay the "vig" or interest weekly to keep your legs intact. The interest paid in no way lowers the principle. This is why loans are given freely on the streets, as most people borrowing could most likely pay back the entire loan, but can usually come up with the vig every week. This also lets loan sharks get their "hooks into you" if you borrow this money, as you will probably be paying it far longer than expected and after you finally pay off the principle with the vig, you will have often paid more then double or triple of the total borrowed.

LordMortis wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Now before you get too excited, the economy is the reason I'm supporting Hillary. She can't leave a legacy unless she helps get wages and living standards growing again. The irony is that she'll be picking up about where Bill left off (and before the Bush administration cratered the economy).

And there we go. You had to ruin it.

You know you feel better that balance is restored to the universe.

Besides, I did vote Ross for Boss. But I'm a sucker for a reasonable fiscal policy backed up by statistics and charts instead of ridiculous rhetoric.

Rip wrote:You owe a debt. Just Uncle Sam is covering it. He will be collecting a vig throughout your life.

Absolutely. But you'll be in a better position to pay it than at any other time in your life.

The way it works now, you have to borrow tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars when you're still a kid and pay it back with interest (it's not like there's no vig currently) all the while hoping you can be gainfully employed asap before your debt forces you to declare bankruptcy. On a positive note, if Uncle Sam foots the bill, you never have to pay it back if you never find employment, or if you do, you only have the pay back according to your means. Those with more income pay a bigger share than those with less. I realize this is the antithesis of how Americans think it should work, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea or off the table for the rest of us.

I've said in the past that I feel providing health care for my neighbour is one of the most noble uses for my taxes that I can imagine. I don't feel as strongly about education, but I'm not opposed to the idea. Society as a whole benefits the more education it gets, so I'm not philosophically opposed to society footing the bill. There are benefits to having an educated population. Whether you think that's something worth paying for is up to you of course.

edit: My understanding of the vig was that it was simply the interest part of the loan.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:You owe a debt. Just Uncle Sam is covering it. He will be collecting a vig throughout your life.

Absolutely. But you'll be in a better position to pay it than at any other time in your life.

The way it works now, you have to borrow tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars when you're still a kid and pay it back with interest (it's not like there's no vig currently) all the while hoping you can be gainfully employed asap before your debt forces you to declare bankruptcy. On a positive note, if Uncle Sam foots the bill, you never have to pay it back if you never find employment, or if you do, you only have the pay back according to your means. Those with more income pay a bigger share than those with less. I realize this is the antithesis of how Americans think it should work, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea or off the table for the rest of us.

I've said in the past that I feel providing health care for my neighbour is one of the most noble uses for my taxes that I can imagine. I don't feel as strongly about education, but I'm not opposed to the idea. Society as a whole benefits the more education it gets, so I'm not philosophically opposed to society footing the bill. There are benefits to having an educated population. Whether you think that's something worth paying for is up to you of course.

edit: My understanding of the vig was that it was simply the interest part of the loan.

Vig is just interest. Which is why bookies and governments are fond of you paying nothing but the vig, until you die and they take your stuff.

Rip wrote:
Vig is just interest. Which is why bookies and governments are fond of you paying nothing but the vig, until you die and they take your stuff.

On the plus side there is no vig (or even principle!) if you never work.

Problem solved.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
Vig is just interest. Which is why bookies and governments are fond of you paying nothing but the vig, until you die and they take your stuff.

On the plus side there is no vig (or even principle!) if you never work.

Problem solved.

Say that two more times and you will probably get elected to public office.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
Vig is just interest. Which is why bookies and governments are fond of you paying nothing but the vig, until you die and they take your stuff.

On the plus side there is no vig (or even principle!) if you never work.

Problem solved.

Say that two more times and you will probably get elected to public office.

I think I would get burned for my stance on the great walls of US.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:
Vig is just interest. Which is why bookies and governments are fond of you paying nothing but the vig, until you die and they take your stuff.

On the plus side there is no vig (or even principle!) if you never work.

Problem solved.

Say that two more times and you will probably get elected to public office.

I think I would get burned for my stance on the great walls of US.

Just as long as you Canadians build it.

LordMortis wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Now before you get too excited, the economy is the reason I'm supporting Hillary. She can't leave a legacy unless she helps get wages and living standards growing again. The irony is that she'll be picking up about where Bill left off (and before the Bush administration cratered the economy).

And there we go. You had to ruin it.

Why do you hate economic prosperity?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-con ... -bill/1911

Toxic Chemical Exposure Reduction Act of 2008 or the TCE Reduction Act of 2008 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish a health advisory for trichloroethylene that fully protects, with an adequate margin of safety, the health of susceptible populations (including pregnant women, infants, and children), taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns, and all routes of exposure.

Requires the Administrator to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for trichloroethylene: (1) that is protective of susceptible populations; and (2) the maximum contaminant level of which is as close to the maximum contaminant level goal for trichloroethylene, and as protective of those susceptible populations, as is feasible.

Requires consumer confidence reports to disclose the presence of, and the potential health risks to susceptible populations from exposure to, trichloroethylene in drinking water.

She could sure use that bill to give her some cred with the far left.

I wonder what happened to it?


Oh, yea.

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/2 ... e-in-India

The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW), in conjunction with WaterHealth International (WHI), revealed last week its commitment to provide $30 million of loan guarantees to support the financing of up to 2,000 WHI community water systems, serving 11 million people in rural India. This commitment was highlighted at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) 2007 Annual Meeting, an invitation-only gathering of heads of state, CEOs and other global leaders from around the world. With this commitment, Dow and WHI are combining efforts to address the global challenge of more than one billion people without access to safe, clean drinking water.

I love watching you freak out over Hillary.

Your anguish makes voting for her actually palatable.

Shocking only Captain Renault, Clinton won big - exit polls have her win at 68-31.

FiveThirtyEight thinks it may be the beginning of the end for Sanders, unless he can turn things around quick, as the way things are going, it will become harder and harder for him to catch up.

hepcat wrote:I love watching you freak out over Hillary.

Your anguish makes voting for her actually palatable.

Freak out seems strong.

That happened a while back. I'm just touching on a few scandals before Trumps starts tossing them out there. I can't wait. Going to be like a celebrity season of biggest loser without needing any scales.

I want to be a fly on the wall of the Rip household if Hillary wins. Will you be moving to Canada? I can't imagine you'll want to stay here, given how much anger you've expressed over her potentially being the next POTUS.

I'm already prepping for Hillary as POTUS. I don't think Sanders can stop her, and with Trump increasingly looking like the Republican nominee, a Hillary victory is the most likely outcome.

I don't like her, but I don't like any of the candidates so that can't really be a deciding factor.

On the positive side, she is a moderate compared to folks like Obama and Pelosi. With every Republican taking up residence in batshit crazy town, a moderate Democrat is about my only sane option.

Benghazi notwithstanding, I think she'd be more adept on the international stage than Obama. And having a female POTUS is a good thing in the long-term - it's not the candidate I'd want in that position, but it breaks down yet another barrier.

The biggest downside, I think, is that there's no way she's going to be able to be a great uniter. She just has way too much baggage for that. So we can look forward to 4-8 more years of angry partisan vitriol with the country splitting further and further apart.

YellowKing wrote: The biggest downside, I think, is that there's no way she's going to be able to be a great uniter. She just has way too much baggage for that. So we can look forward to 4-8 more years of angry partisan vitriol with the country splitting further and further apart.

Can you think of anyone who is not a batshit-crazy right-winger who would not provoke angry partisan vitriol from the batshit-crazy right wing?

Defiant wrote:Shocking only Captain Renault, Clinton won big - exit polls have her win at 68-31.

It looks like the exit polls were off. with 99% reporting, she's at 73.5% to 26%.

Rip wrote:...That happened a while back. I'm just touching on a few scandals before Trumps starts tossing them out there. I can't wait.,,

Hillary vs Trump for President? Yeah, I can't wait for that either, but probably not for the same reason as you...

Defiant wrote:

Defiant wrote:Shocking only Captain Renault, Clinton won big - exit polls have her win at 68-31.

It looks like the exit polls were off. with 99% reporting, she's at 73.5% to 26%.

Bernie needed to be within 20 points to claim better-than-expected, so that's a serious wipeout. We'll find out Tuesday night if it's still a horse race.

YellowKing wrote:
The biggest downside, I think, is that there's no way she's going to be able to be a great uniter. She just has way too much baggage for that. So we can look forward to 4-8 more years of angry partisan vitriol with the country splitting further and further apart.

Neither party wants to bring a knife to a gunfight, and Hillary's history with the GOP ensures that she will not waste time seeking compromise with intransigents. So yeah, it's going to be ugly, but the blame doesn't belong squarely on her.

Defiant wrote:I'd still be interested in knowing the average total costs of students per year ((Government Funding/# of Students) + Tuition + Fees) at Public schools over time (adjusted for inflation). Google has failed me.

OK, so using the numbers here and the statistics I posted earlier that between 2000 and 2013 government funding has gone from 72% to 35% (with the student amount going from 28% to 65%), I found this:

In 2000, the tuition and fees at public schools were $2504, which when including an additional 72% that the government pays, comes out to $8942 per student.
The 2013 tuition and fees were $5899, which when adding 35% for the government comes out to $9075. (Both of them using "current dollars", so we can ignore inflation). That comes out to about a 1.4% increase in that time.

I'm going to put the blame of the increase of tuition squarely on decreased government funding.

There's an interesting two-part series on Hillary and the Libya intervention on NYTimes.com. Definitely worth a read, and has both flattering and unflattering stuff on her in it.

You really have to admire the Hillary tone and how she's able to connect with voters:

“Well, why don’t you go run for something, then?”

Ooof - but she said it with a smile, so hey, it's all good.

Smoove_B wrote:You really have to admire the Hillary tone and how she's able to connect with voters:

“Well, why don’t you go run for something, then?”

Ooof - but she said it with a smile, so hey, it's all good.

I'm guessing Trump has managed to use up her vast reservoirs of patience.

Having watched the video now, that "voter" was staring daggers at her from about 18" away, and she didn't like the answer she got. Politicians are only human, too.

Shrug.

Bad PR is bad PR, so hopefully she can keep her shit together in the future. Lord knows her Rep competitor can say whatever he wants will little fallout.

CNN

Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who help set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

The FBI has been asking for Pagliano's cooperation for months as dozens of investigators pored over thousands of Clinton emails in a secure room on the fourth floor of FBI headquarters.

The probe shifted into a new phase recently as investigators completed the review of the emails, working with intelligence agencies and the State Department to determine whether they were classified.

The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... ge%2Fstory

BAM!

I'm glad he's gotten immunity but I can't help but wonder why on earth he would need immunity. Was it typical FBI strong arming or is he really culpable for anything.

He set up a server. It's not like he was in charge of converting classified documents to unclassified. Or was he?! dun dun duh....

You need to read more Popehat. They cover 18 U.S. Code § 1001 on a regular basis:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

The problem with this scenario is that federal criminal law is extremely broad. Practically speaking, it gives federal prosecutors vast discretion to determine who among us faces criminal charges. If you think that you're safe because you've never committed a crime, you may learn to your surprise that you're wrong.

The rational response to this situation is clear: don't trust the feds, don't talk to the feds.

Yeah, I realize, and that's part of the strong arming I'm talking about. They apply pressure (we'll find something to pin on you if you don't testify) and you, in fear agree to testify if they'll grant you immunity, even though you did nothing wrong in the first place.

Uh... no.

Sure they did! By ignoring it as much as they did, they helped to turn it into an epidemic, which eventually led to a national conversation.

Technically she didn't say how.

I like that she can admit that she made a mistake. I've really turned into a Clinton fanboi.

A friend of mine apparently had the chance to talk with the person who was Surgeon General in the 80s, and he was told that many of the advisors to Reagan actively prevented him from advising the president about AIDS, and that it was only after a fortuitous(!) bomb threat when both he and the President were shoved into a closet that allowed him to do so, which at least started the ball rolling. This article appears to verify some of that.

It doesn't change the administration's legacy, nor does the surgeon general being unable to advise the president directly speak well about Reagan, but it at least gives another perspective on what happened.

GreenGoo wrote:Yeah, I realize, and that's part of the strong arming I'm talking about. They apply pressure (we'll find something to pin on you if you don't testify) and you, in fear agree to testify if they'll grant you immunity, even though you did nothing wrong in the first place.

The immunity is to remove any excuse he has to testify to facts that are critical in proving who did do things wrong. They were never after him but he was taking the fifth to make sure. SO they removed the excuse. That's all. Now he must answer all their questions or he WILL be guilty of doing something wrong.