another liberal "professor" shows his true colors
May 4, 2017 22:59:08 #
Glaucon wrote:
The stuff you see in movies is make believe and it is important that you don't continue to confuse it with reality.
I actually read the original novel. It is in the book. Do not worry about me. I deal with reality every day. Unlike you, me and reality know each other very well.
May 5, 2017 08:21:00 #
son of witless wrote:
In Bram Stoker's famous novel Dracula, Vampires had no reflection in a mirror. It is strange for one who has never done any self reflection and is therefore Vampire like, to be telling others that they have need of spending time in self reflection.
THANK YOU! That Idiot keeps answering that same post. I have no time for HIS drivel either.
May 5, 2017 08:23:11 #
son of witless wrote:
I actually read the original novel. It is in the book. Do not worry about me. I deal with reality every day. Unlike you, me and reality know each other very well.
The Liberal idiots, at least the ones that come on here, don't seem to HAVE any connection to reality!!!
May 5, 2017 13:49:00 #
The GOP wants people poor and sick:
State bid for retirement savings plan is blocked
U.S. Senate stops California-led effort to help low-income workers obtain IRA-type accounts.
By Evan Halper
WASHINGTON — A pioneering, California-led effort to create retirement security for low-income workers has been thrown into jeopardy after the U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to block states from starting programs to automatically enroll millions of people in IRA-type savings plans.
The measure, aimed at stopping the fledgling state retirement programs, now goes to President Trump, who has vowed to sign it.
That leaves lawmakers in California, Illinois and other states, who only months ago were celebrating the success of their long-planned initiative, scrambling to regroup. The Senate voted 50 to 49 to stop the state plans.
The retirement programs, which were about to launch in seven states and are under consideration in many more, were targeted by Wall Street firms and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The vote reflected the renewed influence of the business lobby in Washington since the 2016 election, with lawmakers defying the 38-million-member AARP, a vocal supporter of the automatic individual retirement account program. The seniors group had warned senators that its members would hold them accountable for their votes.
“Nobody had a problem with this except for the big Wall Street companies who invented in their mind that they would be losing business to these state innovations,” said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), whose state was moving to implement an auto-IRA program. “This is a terrible, terrible thing we are doing,” he said of the Senate’s vote to undermine the state programs.
The California Secure Choice program and similar retirement laws generally require employers with no retirement plans to automatically invest a small percentage of each worker’s pay in a state-sponsored retirement account. Employees can opt out of the program if they choose.
The money is managed by private investment firms that partner with the states. The accounts are intended to help build financial security for some 55 million workers nationwide whose employers do not offer a retirement plan.
The push to implement the programs was delayed for years by complicated federal Labor Department rules governing such investment pools. In its final months, the Obama administration gave states the green light to pursue their vision. But Congress has now voted to revoke that authority, leaving the programs in limbo. Opponents of the state programs say they became too risky for consumers after the federal rules were changed.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) denounced the regulation permitting the retirement plans as something “that President Obama personally ordered Labor Secretary Tom Perez to draft as a gift to certain blue states.”
Democrats on the Senate floor charged that such arguments were a smokescreen to obscure an effort to protect the profits of big investment houses concerned their business could be eroded if companies moved their employees into state-sponsored plans.
The congressional vote brought to a head an early confrontation between California and the Trump-era Congress. The retirement law is a signature achievement of California Senate leader Kevin de Leon, who worked on it for years.
The House passed the measure to block the programs in March at the urging of De Leon’s fellow Californian and longtime political rival, Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the House majority leader.
De Leon has vowed to push ahead with the state’s effort, saying California can redesign its program to avoid federal approval. But such a redesign would make it more vulnerable to legal challenge, and probably delay implementation.
California and other states were moved to address the large share of the workforce not enrolled in any retirement plan after efforts to create a federal automatic IRA program stalled years ago.
Reports by some bipartisan think tanks and policy analysts suggest the programs could ultimately save states billions of dollars by creating a measure of financial security for elderly Americans who otherwise end up on the rolls of Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs.
evan.halper@latimes.com
State bid for retirement savings plan is blocked
U.S. Senate stops California-led effort to help low-income workers obtain IRA-type accounts.
By Evan Halper
WASHINGTON — A pioneering, California-led effort to create retirement security for low-income workers has been thrown into jeopardy after the U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to block states from starting programs to automatically enroll millions of people in IRA-type savings plans.
The measure, aimed at stopping the fledgling state retirement programs, now goes to President Trump, who has vowed to sign it.
That leaves lawmakers in California, Illinois and other states, who only months ago were celebrating the success of their long-planned initiative, scrambling to regroup. The Senate voted 50 to 49 to stop the state plans.
The retirement programs, which were about to launch in seven states and are under consideration in many more, were targeted by Wall Street firms and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The vote reflected the renewed influence of the business lobby in Washington since the 2016 election, with lawmakers defying the 38-million-member AARP, a vocal supporter of the automatic individual retirement account program. The seniors group had warned senators that its members would hold them accountable for their votes.
“Nobody had a problem with this except for the big Wall Street companies who invented in their mind that they would be losing business to these state innovations,” said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), whose state was moving to implement an auto-IRA program. “This is a terrible, terrible thing we are doing,” he said of the Senate’s vote to undermine the state programs.
The California Secure Choice program and similar retirement laws generally require employers with no retirement plans to automatically invest a small percentage of each worker’s pay in a state-sponsored retirement account. Employees can opt out of the program if they choose.
The money is managed by private investment firms that partner with the states. The accounts are intended to help build financial security for some 55 million workers nationwide whose employers do not offer a retirement plan.
The push to implement the programs was delayed for years by complicated federal Labor Department rules governing such investment pools. In its final months, the Obama administration gave states the green light to pursue their vision. But Congress has now voted to revoke that authority, leaving the programs in limbo. Opponents of the state programs say they became too risky for consumers after the federal rules were changed.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) denounced the regulation permitting the retirement plans as something “that President Obama personally ordered Labor Secretary Tom Perez to draft as a gift to certain blue states.”
Democrats on the Senate floor charged that such arguments were a smokescreen to obscure an effort to protect the profits of big investment houses concerned their business could be eroded if companies moved their employees into state-sponsored plans.
The congressional vote brought to a head an early confrontation between California and the Trump-era Congress. The retirement law is a signature achievement of California Senate leader Kevin de Leon, who worked on it for years.
The House passed the measure to block the programs in March at the urging of De Leon’s fellow Californian and longtime political rival, Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the House majority leader.
De Leon has vowed to push ahead with the state’s effort, saying California can redesign its program to avoid federal approval. But such a redesign would make it more vulnerable to legal challenge, and probably delay implementation.
California and other states were moved to address the large share of the workforce not enrolled in any retirement plan after efforts to create a federal automatic IRA program stalled years ago.
Reports by some bipartisan think tanks and policy analysts suggest the programs could ultimately save states billions of dollars by creating a measure of financial security for elderly Americans who otherwise end up on the rolls of Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs.
evan.halper@latimes.com
May 5, 2017 15:21:57 #
Democrats’ midterm dilemma
RONALD BROWNSTEIN
P resident Trump’s historically low approval ratings provide Democrats legitimate reasons for optimism about their prospects in the 2018 elections, especially in the House. But that confidence rests on a contradiction: Minorities and millennials, the groups most alienated from Trump, are traditionally the constituencies least likely to vote in midterm elections.
The contrast between the electorate’s composition in presidential and midterm elections has confounded Democrats since the 1990s. Over the past two decades, the party has grown more reliant on a coalition revolving around college-educated whites (especially women), minorities and millennials. That new configuration has left Democrats with a boom-and-bust coalition, because the latter two groups are much more likely to vote in presidential elections than midterms; the off-year falloff has been particularly severe among young people. As minorities and millennials recede in midterms, the older whites who increasingly favor the GOP cast a larger share of ballots.
That dynamic helped fuel the GOP sweeps in both the 2010 and 2014 contests under President Obama, and offers a warning for the next one. “If the 2018 electorate resembles a typical midterm electorate, Democrats won’t take back the House,” said Tom Bonier, chief executive of the Democratic voter-targeting firm TargetSmart. “The question of millennial turnout is the biggest question to that end, and it will remain an open question until Election Day 2018.”
The challenge is especially urgent for Democrats because Trump divides younger and older Americans so sharply. Though Trump showed strength among blue-collar white millennials, he carried just 36% of young people overall last November. Polls show he’s lost ground since. Both the CNN/ORC and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys released last week found his approval rating among adults ages 18 to 34 — almost exactly the millennial generation’s boundaries — falling below 30%. Trump’s border wall, his push to repeal Obama’s climate-change agenda, his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, cut taxes for top earners, bar Syrian refugees from the U.S. — they all face preponderant millennial opposition in surveys.
That hostility has produced a pronounced Democratic lean among millennials in early tests of 2018 attitudes. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the party’s advantage among younger voters approaches 30 points, more than double the level in 2010 and 2014 polls. By contrast, Americans 35 years old or more divide exactly evenly between the parties in the CNN/ORC survey and slightly prefer Republicans in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
With millennials poised to eclipse baby boomers as the largest generation of eligible voters in 2020, that ought to present a real challenge for the GOP, but only if Democrats can motivate these younger voters to actually mark and submit their ballots.
Figures compiled by CIRCLE, an institute that studies voter engagement at Tufts University, found that turnout among eligible voters ages 18 to 29 plummeted by more than half from the 2008 presidential election to the 2010 midterms and by that much again from 2012 to 2014. That decline was proportionally far greater than among older generations. (It was also greater than the falloff among minority voters from presidential to midterm elections.)
The result is that while young people ages 18 to 29 comprised nearly one-fifth of all voters in 2008 and 2012, their share collapsed to about one in eight in 2010 and 2014. Seniors, in turn, cast considerably more of the total vote in those midterms than in the presidential years. If that dynamic persists, it will measurably boost Trump and the GOP. In the CNN/ORC survey, more than seven in 10 millennials said they want candidates who will oppose Trump. A slight majority of seniors said they want candidates who will support him.
Can Democrats avoid another midterm millennial malaise? They start with less enthusiasm than under Obama. With Hillary Clinton topping the ticket, Bonier’s analysis of state voter files found, turnout was strong among Latino young people, weaker among younger African Americans (especially men), and mixed among whites.
Two young Democratic operatives have approached the problem from the supply side by forming an organization called Run for Something that assists progressive millennials seeking state or local office. Amanda Litman, the group’s co-founder, said it is building a network of campaign consultants and donors to help young candidates for offices from school board to state legislatures; it has already advanced about 800 potential candidates past its initial screening process.
That many more young
candidates knocking on doors could engage more young voters. “Our candidates have told us,” Litman said, “that their friends and their communities are
getting more involved because they have a personal connection.” Rather than waiting for Democratic organizations to groom young candidates and mobilize young voters, she added, “people like me, my candidates, and their supporters are stepping up and not waiting for the committees.”
Litman pins responsibility in the right place. Whether or not the Democratic Party musters effective turnout efforts, the Trump years will test whether millennials can bear the weight of politically defending the values that most of them say define their generation.
Ronald Brownstein is a
senior editor of the Atlantic.
rbrownstein@national
journal.com
RONALD BROWNSTEIN
P resident Trump’s historically low approval ratings provide Democrats legitimate reasons for optimism about their prospects in the 2018 elections, especially in the House. But that confidence rests on a contradiction: Minorities and millennials, the groups most alienated from Trump, are traditionally the constituencies least likely to vote in midterm elections.
The contrast between the electorate’s composition in presidential and midterm elections has confounded Democrats since the 1990s. Over the past two decades, the party has grown more reliant on a coalition revolving around college-educated whites (especially women), minorities and millennials. That new configuration has left Democrats with a boom-and-bust coalition, because the latter two groups are much more likely to vote in presidential elections than midterms; the off-year falloff has been particularly severe among young people. As minorities and millennials recede in midterms, the older whites who increasingly favor the GOP cast a larger share of ballots.
That dynamic helped fuel the GOP sweeps in both the 2010 and 2014 contests under President Obama, and offers a warning for the next one. “If the 2018 electorate resembles a typical midterm electorate, Democrats won’t take back the House,” said Tom Bonier, chief executive of the Democratic voter-targeting firm TargetSmart. “The question of millennial turnout is the biggest question to that end, and it will remain an open question until Election Day 2018.”
The challenge is especially urgent for Democrats because Trump divides younger and older Americans so sharply. Though Trump showed strength among blue-collar white millennials, he carried just 36% of young people overall last November. Polls show he’s lost ground since. Both the CNN/ORC and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys released last week found his approval rating among adults ages 18 to 34 — almost exactly the millennial generation’s boundaries — falling below 30%. Trump’s border wall, his push to repeal Obama’s climate-change agenda, his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, cut taxes for top earners, bar Syrian refugees from the U.S. — they all face preponderant millennial opposition in surveys.
That hostility has produced a pronounced Democratic lean among millennials in early tests of 2018 attitudes. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the party’s advantage among younger voters approaches 30 points, more than double the level in 2010 and 2014 polls. By contrast, Americans 35 years old or more divide exactly evenly between the parties in the CNN/ORC survey and slightly prefer Republicans in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
With millennials poised to eclipse baby boomers as the largest generation of eligible voters in 2020, that ought to present a real challenge for the GOP, but only if Democrats can motivate these younger voters to actually mark and submit their ballots.
Figures compiled by CIRCLE, an institute that studies voter engagement at Tufts University, found that turnout among eligible voters ages 18 to 29 plummeted by more than half from the 2008 presidential election to the 2010 midterms and by that much again from 2012 to 2014. That decline was proportionally far greater than among older generations. (It was also greater than the falloff among minority voters from presidential to midterm elections.)
The result is that while young people ages 18 to 29 comprised nearly one-fifth of all voters in 2008 and 2012, their share collapsed to about one in eight in 2010 and 2014. Seniors, in turn, cast considerably more of the total vote in those midterms than in the presidential years. If that dynamic persists, it will measurably boost Trump and the GOP. In the CNN/ORC survey, more than seven in 10 millennials said they want candidates who will oppose Trump. A slight majority of seniors said they want candidates who will support him.
Can Democrats avoid another midterm millennial malaise? They start with less enthusiasm than under Obama. With Hillary Clinton topping the ticket, Bonier’s analysis of state voter files found, turnout was strong among Latino young people, weaker among younger African Americans (especially men), and mixed among whites.
Two young Democratic operatives have approached the problem from the supply side by forming an organization called Run for Something that assists progressive millennials seeking state or local office. Amanda Litman, the group’s co-founder, said it is building a network of campaign consultants and donors to help young candidates for offices from school board to state legislatures; it has already advanced about 800 potential candidates past its initial screening process.
That many more young
candidates knocking on doors could engage more young voters. “Our candidates have told us,” Litman said, “that their friends and their communities are
getting more involved because they have a personal connection.” Rather than waiting for Democratic organizations to groom young candidates and mobilize young voters, she added, “people like me, my candidates, and their supporters are stepping up and not waiting for the committees.”
Litman pins responsibility in the right place. Whether or not the Democratic Party musters effective turnout efforts, the Trump years will test whether millennials can bear the weight of politically defending the values that most of them say define their generation.
Ronald Brownstein is a
senior editor of the Atlantic.
rbrownstein@national
journal.com
May 5, 2017 17:43:21 #
Bevos wrote:
The Liberal idiots, at least the ones that come on here, don't seem to HAVE any connection to reality!!!
Glaucon is not a serious poster except in his own head. His only value on OPP is for comic relief. He is the kid everyone picked on growing up. He is the one who picked fights with the bigger kids and then called in Mommy to save him.
May 5, 2017 17:49:19 #
son of witless wrote:
Glaucon is not a serious poster except in his own head. His only value on OPP is for comic relief. He is the kid everyone picked on growing up. He is the one who picked fights with the bigger kids and then called in Mommy to save him.
at least he is not the kid of right wing parents who are failures that cause their kids to want to shoot up the school because they were not raised to have social skills.....
May 5, 2017 19:15:10 #
Progressive One wrote:
at least he is not the kid of right wing parents who are failures that cause their kids to want to shoot up the school because they were not raised to have social skills.....
I appreciate the fact that he is not a mass murderer. I assume he is not a bank robber, an embezzler, or a tax cheat either. That does not automatically give him social skills. Then again you are not known for your social skills and look how far life took you. All the way to here.
May 5, 2017 19:40:16 #
son of witless wrote:
I appreciate the fact that he is not a mass murderer. I assume he is not a bank robber, an embezzler, or a tax cheat either. That does not automatically give him social skills. Then again you are not known for your social skills and look how far life took you. All the way to here.
Of course I am known for my social skills, professionally and academically...and even in those arenas, I am known not to do well with the anti-social, recalcitrant, OPP types..my co-workers and students both find me to be a hoot....and I remind them that it is by design, especially since now I can retire any day I choose. .I am known as a talented non-conformist who is tolerated because I bring a lot to the table and can make very relevant and significant organizational contributions........ Mayor Riordan solidified that perception for me........
May 6, 2017 09:06:20 #
Progressive One wrote:
Of course I am known for my social skills, profess... (show quote)
Mayor Riordan ? You will have to excuse my ignorance. I do not live in California. I know he was Republican mayor of Los Angeles. What does he have to do with you?
May 6, 2017 09:51:08 #
son of witless wrote:
Mayor Riordan ? You will have to excuse my ignorance. I do not live in California. I know he was Republican mayor of Los Angeles. What does he have to do with you?
I received a commendation from him for automating an entire city department way back when business workflow and electronic document management systems were just being introduced-1994. I demonstrated how you could make the entire organization paperless and on autopilot. Just scan mail or received documents...optical character recognition read the document and automatically routed it to the appropriate person for processing and electronic signatures. If the document sat at one authorization point too long, it would automatically escalate itself and move forward in order to keep the transaction time always consistent. The business rules for processes/transactions were programmed into the system as a transaction "route" to travel throughout the organization. File rooms were eliminated and clerical staff was given new opportunities. Millions would be saved from penalties and interest charges since transactions could now be completed without being late. That will help the resume when I start consulting independently.
May 6, 2017 15:20:52 #
son of witless wrote:
Mayor Riordan ? You will have to excuse my ignorance. I do not live in California. I know he was Republican mayor of Los Angeles. What does he have to do with you?
Ex Mayor Riordan has a charity organization. Feel free to email them and copy and paste a few of Mr. Perfesers post here and flat out ask Mr. Riordan if he even knows Nappy boy or gave him any awards.....you will find out first hand...it is all fiction by the liar...Progressive one....
You will note...this so called award is something this lying sack of dung Kevin, KHH1 posted a long time ago and have a old worn xeroxed copy he made up of such an award meeting...but with any close inspection of that picture of it..you could tell he made it...altered and doctored it up a few hundred times to make it appear real....and then you also notice there is no NAME of the person getting the award....now you connect the dots on it....no name on the article and no name on any award....all manufactured by Mr. Wanna B. Perfesser.
Be prepared for a shock of what Mr. Riordan's reaction will be in his response....your inquiry to him about this social diseased mental case Progressive one is, there is no way in a snowballs chance in hell that he would ever know someone as vile and nasty as this impostor is! There are other people's REAL awards on the internet you maybe can find...and those awards were legit...and had the person's NAME on the award. Connect the dots...would you have an award from someone that your NAME is not even on it?????? HOOHOHhehehehahahahahahLOLOLOL I have pulled the covers off this LIAR Kevin...aka KHH1...(His name and initials....Kevin H. H.) and for everything he has posted that has been one fat lie! He just is not sharp enough to fool everyone all the time...he thinks he is...but nope! I had him "doc'd by a professional company...they send for a fee some basic intel on a person, even their drivers license information and basic information. And he knows I have him in a corner. SQUIRMING!
May 6, 2017 15:26:39 #
Progressive One wrote:
Of course I am known for my social skills, profess... (show quote)
"Of course I am known for my social skills, professionally and academically.."...yes like you stating to people here how you will rape their daughters or wife! Your fantasy of your black snake and all of that....HILARIOUS and as always you make such an IDIOT out of yourself.....clearly you just cannot cope with honesty. Your social skills...got you BANNED once already from this website.....oh yeah...you are REALLY Top Shelf stuff...NOT
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Hillary may have an award for you..."fellow liar of the year"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 6, 2017 15:44:11 #
son of witless wrote:
I appreciate the fact that he is not a mass murderer. I assume he is not a bank robber, an embezzler, or a tax cheat either. That does not automatically give him social skills. Then again you are not known for your social skills and look how far life took you. All the way to here.
Bwahahahahhahahahahaha OH MY...hahahah ehehehehehehhohoholalallal!
May 6, 2017 15:44:53 #
Progressive One wrote:
Of course I am known for my social skills, profess... (show quote)
You are getting caught more and more...poop dude!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.