|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 22, 2014 18:14:01 GMT -6
It must really gall them that they won't have Benghazi to hang over Hillary and OBama's heads any longer LOL
House GOP report debunks Benghazi conspiracy theories www.aol.com/article/2014/11/22/house-gop-report-debunks-benghazi-conspiracy-theories/20997710/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D569127
Nov 22nd 2014 4:45PM
The Friday report by the Republican-led House Select Committee on Intelligence found no intelligence failure prior to the attacks, no evidence that the White House told the military to stand down during the attack and no evidence that the CIA was involved in related arms shipments. The report did, however, find that the consulate was inadequately protected.
As for the initial message from the Obama administration that the attack began with a spontaneous protest, the committee did find that inaccurate but blamed unclear intelligence reports, not a purposeful attempt from the White House to mislead.
The select committee's report on the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans took two years and thousands of hours of work in Congress
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 22, 2014 19:37:57 GMT -6
The select committee's report on the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans took two years and thousands of hours of work in Congress So did Obama care LOL..............
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 23, 2014 7:30:17 GMT -6
must be tuff when your wife sends you to the store for apples- no telling what you might bring home...... 1) brought insurance to millions to allow them to get health care when they need it 2) was a political charade that they preferred to spend their time and the nations treasure on, all for NOTHING as the childhood poem goes...one of these things, is not like the other thing......
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 23, 2014 10:24:09 GMT -6
Millions for sure what impact still remains to be seen, as many of those millions well it was setup for the uninsured not the under insured working class. The real benefit impact yet to be seen and also little in the way of cost savings for millions of others as mine has gone up each year as well, private insurance still under writing the coverage and the profits have to still come from somewhere. So RSAL impact? yet to be seen even though millions have coverage.........,
Again not totally against the health care issue but where it sits now the real impact is yet to been seen, that is a fact.
The rest well it is a blurb nothing mire as our govt spends plenty of money on non sense how is this really different? Benghazi or other senseless issues ? This is being used for political gain as well Tman as the left touts what a waste of time and money nothing came from the Benghazi issue, our congress should be doing more for the people yadda,yadda, yet they have done little nothing in 6 years from either side of the isle.
Here are a few : While the U.S. government commits senseless acts like skimping on consulate security in violent North African countries, it spends $500 million to help minorities—especially blacks—enter biomedical research fields where lack of diversity is “disturbing and disheartening.”
The grand plan was announced this month by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s medical research agency. As part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH doles out north of $31 billion annually to hundreds of thousands of researchers at thousands of universities and institutions around the globe.
Last year the NIH sanctioned a study that determined blacks who apply for federal research grants are less likely than whites and Hispanics to receive the awards. The study took years and was conducted to “learn more about the challenges facing the scientific community,” according to the NIH’s director, and to improve the diversity of its biomedical research workforce. He called the findings “disturbing and disheartening.”
That’s because from 2000 to 2006, black researchers who applied for NIH grants were 10% less likely than whites to get the awards, according to the study, which is among the few to focus solely on the racial and ethnic composition of federal research funding applicants. Of additional concern is the low number of “non-white applicants” who apply for the public grants in the first place, the study found.
Researchers from the government-funded team of esteemed academics that conducted the minority probe think this is why; “the quality of educational and mentoring experiences may differ for applicants who self-identify as black or African-American.” In short, the NIH has admitted that it is guilty of not equally benefitting “all racial and ethnic groups.”
To right this wrong the NIH has created a 10-year plan that will dedicate $50 million annually to support hundreds of minority students with scholarships, research experiences and even graduate loan repayment. The agency will also create a new committee that makes “diversity a core consideration of NIH governance” and ensures fairness in the peer review system that erases “unconscious bias related to disparities in research awards.” The plan also implements “implicit bias and diversity awareness training.”
This is the same agency that recently gave an Ivy League university professor more than $2 million to promote condom use among injecting drug addicts in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet socialist republic that serves as a main route for Russia and Europe-bound narcotics, and $823,200 for an equally questionable project that teaches uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex to help curb the spread of AIDS. Just a few enraging examples of what the government is doing with your tax dollars.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 23, 2014 14:21:29 GMT -6
There will be costs and additional costs over time for sure with ACA. What you fail to recognize is there were and are real costs without the plan and there was wholesale agreement that HC in the USA was broken, now it is just a matter of what are the alternatives or changes that are acceptable. Under the old private sector system there was no voice in the mix at all other than I won't pay for the care or the insurance. We now have a voice and voice creates alternatives and yes conflicts. I would much rather be involved in discussion on something I may be able to change than taking what is offered and hope like heck that I could survive the cherry picking season which occurs annually in the Private Sector HC system.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 23, 2014 14:53:02 GMT -6
My point Bryce it is far from perfect just like out federal govt So before I go touting it as some great deal for 3.5 million Americans , I would look at the overall deal and with 5 million illegals possibly becoming instant Americans they too will be added to a system that needs tweaked.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 23, 2014 14:53:45 GMT -6
Cherry picking still takes place in all other forms of insurance as well today................
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 23, 2014 18:07:41 GMT -6
Just because the government is not perfect in your mind it give you the right to be as you choose to be? Most of us make our own decisions be they right or wrong or popular or not we don't need to be externally referenced by others and especially those we don't feel are good examples.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 23, 2014 19:49:15 GMT -6
The govt will never be perfect, just like any agency that deals with the public some people will love the decisions made and others not so much......... They are all try to appeal to the mass in the middle or should be, but anymore the middle is the last place they try to work with.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 24, 2014 1:43:02 GMT -6
If not the "middle" then which extreme is the fairest one? We'll see how it goes with the Repubs in charge, not too much a good track record so far I'd say. lol
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 24, 2014 11:30:28 GMT -6
Five conservative states voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage and most of those states voted to displace a Democrat Senator with a GOP senator. It shows that many have a very distant or disconnected relationship with federal politics and what they want for themselves at home. This may well be the way for a Democratic Republic to alleviate or minimize the impact of the dysfunctional federal government. Voting for more conservative change in DC and yet wanting a more progressive and populist principled local life style. Ballot initiatives may well be the way to minimize the power of the Federal and or National two party system and also the huge PACs that control all the 529 funds as well. With a president with executive power and the willingness to use it and states working on their own issues and state leaders working to solve their citizen's issues the lack of governing from Congress may not be so impactful as it seems. We are starting now to see well known or up and coming politicians choosing to run for state houses instead of the senate or the house. They can do much more from an executive office than a two party majority controlled office where leadership skills don't really make much difference.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 27, 2014 7:23:43 GMT -6
Both houses becoming obsolete? Yes, I can see that scenario happening in this current political climate.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 8:37:36 GMT -6
The min wage is nothing but a red herring always has been always will be it is nothing but a number and a feather in the cap technique use through time nothing more, that has no real impact on our future what so ever. We could make min wage 13.00 per hr and goods and services would rise in accordance so then the 13.00 per hr just comes the new 7.35 standard..........
This one issue I want no one wasting time on. We raise min wage say 5.00 per hr do the lowest tax rolls then change for the cause and effect as well or do they stay the same? many other factors go into it but the end result means very,very little except increased cost at McDonalds and many,many other places.
Pam the republicans got voted in for a reason in some areas, people got sick of the way things where going the last 6 years or why change?
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 16:53:19 GMT -6
But what you can not deny is that minimum wage may well become a non political issue if done at the state level and that will take thunder away from both the far left and the far right who don't really want to deal with reality anyway. States will determine what a favorable minimum wage is for their region and I see that coming on board quickly in many states. Especially in states that want to lower assistance and welfare costs. One way to lower taxation money used to pay for assistance is to raise wages so there is more income for those that work. I don't see the whole job loss issue as being as big a deal as the naysayers make it out to be. They want to offer less and earn less and grow less let them as there will be others who will fill the voids. Now with the decoupling of work and HC insurance over time we can work on separating HC insurance with free medical to those that are not working. Asking everyone to pay something is a better system than what we had. If we would have been willing to work on this in the 1990s instead of blocking it we would have different structure with more private sector involvement that would create more opportunity for all.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 20:20:49 GMT -6
Bryce states and local business already does that, it is called supply and demand. I know very few business that sets their wage at the fed min wage. because they cannot get employees to work for such heck it is hard enough finding people to work for 9.00 per hr let alone less than 8.00 regardless.
Again I used to work for a very tight business owner he would have loved to pay nothing but min wage he found out real fast what he got even close to that was not cutting it, people where no shows 2 days a week, the work was less than par, and they complained all the time. he went up to 10.50 to start and it helped some, then ia told him even at 12.00 per hr and the hourly rates he was charging that things would work out better and it happened, we hired a better work force, the work got done on time and far less screw ups which meant hurting his business and time used to fix mistakes and sub par work.
he didn't need the govt entities to do that change for him, it just took a little time for him to see paying more brought a better worker through the door,because you had more applicants, with better backgrounds in the work being performed. Simple really. I really disliked the interviews I did when we paid lower as I knew these deals would never work out, so either give a few a chance or go without the work force, much better interviewing a better selection as he brought the hourly rate up.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 22:51:34 GMT -6
States are not local businesses they are governments and yes they are addressing income as they see low income for workers as a huge drag on their economic growth and also stimulating population growth and thus working to maintain a more youthful population that means more working age persons with more revenue generation. If you look at the major areas of the USA that are red as house members are GOP they are largely rural areas with low populations and or rural based jobs which have always had lower minimum wages for agriculture employment or they are higher income conservative suburban areas where people live but DON"T Work where they live. The regions of the USA with most of the employment and also the future employment are blue or purple and that is where the consensus for increasing earnings is coming from. Congress is not an executive form of government and therefore does not see or maybe understand the way states and or even local governments solve issues. I like the idea of states becoming more actively involved in setting major policy because over 4 decades I have been able to create some strong relationships with politicians and that means one can have some impact and work to make a difference instead of just make noise.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 28, 2014 0:56:33 GMT -6
Gee, what a coincidence that the GOP-controlled committee releases its findings two weeks AFTER the election.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 7:28:47 GMT -6
James you really feel that releasing this during the election cycle it would have made a impact on the outcome of the voting?
I sure don't................
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 28, 2014 8:04:25 GMT -6
I like facts- and the fact is, in the past when the minimum wage increased prices did not skyrocket, they stayed relatively stable-
heres a good summation concerning if prices will skyrocket-
I can understand theoretically why you might predict that, but studies have not borne it out. Minimum wage labor is too small a percentage of costs for corporations to pass on more than very few of the increases to the final purchasers. Prices tend to be relatively stable, moving in increments that are easily marketable, slow enough not to piss people off, and based on competition. A significant percentage of the increased cost would come out of profits. Certainly, if you have a dramatic increase in the minimum wage, you would see prices rise, but at reasonable and even large but realistic increases, like to $10.50 an hour, you would see very little increase in prices at the consumer end. Some perhaps, but very little.
You would also see a decrease in demand on entitlement programs as minimum wage workers currently are on welfare and food stamps. Basically, we're subsidizing the employment because they don't pay a minimum wage so the government through our tax dollars makes up the difference. If they have to pay a living wage, we'll save money on entitlements and we'll also see a boost to the economy by increased spending. Every extra dollar in the hands of those with the fewest dollars is spent, unlike extra dollars in the hands of the wealthy where most of it is saved. And finally, with the increased tax base, you also get increased tax revenue (even with the same tax rates). All of this allows for lower deficits. Overall, it is generally a net benefit to the economy and to individuals within it. The winners outweigh the losers (who might see a small dip in profits) by a considerable amount.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 16:50:45 GMT -6
You think going from 7.35 to 9.00 per hr would take these people off public assistance? What if many have 2-3 dependents? not enough difference either way to me, like your article states a small percentage of the work force and a small percentage that would be off public assistance so what is the win?
|
|