Werthless wrote:Lot of good stuff in your post, but I'll focus on this one sentence that ties back to the original discussion:

we could make "bad jobs" better, by raising the minimum wage, expanding benefits, enabling unionization, etc.

IMO, we shouldn't do things that make our companies less competitive and less apt to hire

td11 wrote:companies are people too, my friend

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

Right, but it is reasonable to question what we're doing without being characterized as pro-poverty.

To slugrsbad's point, poverty levels improve when the economy is improving. Many conservatives argue this very point, that our government's best anti-poverty programs are ones that have nothing to do with addressing poverty. We should have simple, easy to understand safety nets, but then spend the rest of our efforts trying to improve the dynamism of the US economy.

But the issue from the right isn't the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, is whether there is any social responsibility for dealing with poverty, couched in a vicious William Graham Sumner social darwinian morality of blame. Increasingly, the basic idea from the right is "let them starve, I've got mine" not "we need to do something that's more effective in dealing with poverty". It's similar to reproductive issues. It's not "let's see how we can reduce the number of abortions performed" the right is saying "sluts need to be punished, and if you were raped, well, you probably are a slut anyway."

TenuredVulture wrote:rules to a large extent determine the outcome. So if you get to make the rules, you can ensure your success.

Adegbile’s cardinal sin? He worked on a Legal Defense Fund appeal (that the NAACP had already been involved in before he took the position) contending that there was racial discrimination in Abu-Jamal’s trial and then, later, on a brief arguing that the jury instructions in Abu-Jamal’s trial were constitutionally improper. This was a contention that prevailed in a federal appeals court. Later the LDF represented Abu-Jamal in a Supreme Court case when prosecutors sought to reinstate his death sentence.

To be clear, then: Adegbile was not himself a cop-killer. He didn’t help a cop-killer get off and roam free with false claims of innocence. What he did do—which fits pretty readily within the historic mandate of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund—was to help ensure that the American criminal justice system, and especially the death penalty, is administered fairly and constitutionally. As a representative of an organization that is institutionally dedicated to ensuring that justice is administered fairly, he fought for fairness and (totally unfair!) judges agreed that unfairness occurred.

Once upon a time in America this was called advocating for justice. But in today’s America, it’s deemed a miscarriage of justice. And so the fact that Adegbile has long been one of the most skilled and principled civil rights attorneys in the country is cast by Senate Republicans as a kind of catastrophic public scam. (Disclosure: I have met Adegbile several times and have sat on several panels with him.) The right-wing smear squad raced to label Adegbile a "cop-killer’s coddler," or a “pro-criminal cop-killer.” Not unrelatedly, his other sin? Adegbile argued the Voting Rights cases at the Supreme Court, the ones making the radical argument that racial bias still exists in some voting schemes. I guess legal advocacy is just always wrong if it’s done by the NAACP.

The notion that the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division should have ever fought for civil rights has now become disqualifying.
Even some Senate Democrats, like Bob Casey (D-Pa.), found that they simply could not in good conscience vote for Adegbile’s confirmation. Casey claimed that he was voting against this respected civil rights litigator out of solicitude for the Fraternal Order of Police and the widow of Daniel Faulkner. And so today, Adegbile failed to amass the 51 votes needed for confirmation. And in a neat trick of political advocacy, the Senate Republicans who colluded to derail his nomination accused Adegbile of committing political advocacy. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) proclaimed: “This was not simply a case of a lawyer representing an unpopular client. … It was a political cause. There was really no question about it.” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Adegbile of “seeking to glorify an unrepentant cop-killer.” Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it this way: “This was a cause in search of a legal justification.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) slammed LDF for “lionizing” convicted cop-killers: “We all should agree that violent criminals should be punished. And we all should agree that those who go out of their way to advocate for, to celebrate, to lionize convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the U.S. Department of Justice.”

And so the claim that Abu-Jamal deserved to be spared the death penalty because of an injustice perpetrated in his trial is converted to a liberal party trick, a scam that conflates rooting out legal injustice with lionizing and celebrating killing. Civil rights advocacy is cast as an act of grotesque political and legal fraud. And the notion that the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division should have ever fought for civil rights has now become disqualifying.

But the campaign to discredit Adegbile isn’t just a referendum on what discrimination means today in America and how we’re permitted to correct it. It’s also a referendum on the most basic premise of any functioning legal system: that even the guilty deserve representation and that the justice system cannot operate if we don’t work to correct systemic injustice. As the president of the American Bar Association, James R. Silkenat, was forced to explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “a fundamental tenet of our justice system and our Constitution is that anyone who faces loss of liberty has a right to legal counsel. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to uphold that principle and provide zealous representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government—even to those accused or convicted of terrible crimes.”

But as of today, you are as guilty as your guiltiest client, and your representation of that client—especially if it is both zealous and successful—is now disqualifying as well. Cop-killers deserve no lawyers and their lawyers deserve no role in government service. It’s not hard to imagine the scorching Fox News headlines, under the new standards set forth by the Judiciary Committee today: “John Adams Frees Vicious Patriot-Killer in Boston Massacre.” “John Roberts Unsuccessfully Defends Serial Killer in Florida!” “Anarchist-Loving Felix Frankfurter Advocates for Sacco and Vanzetti!” Clarence Darrow! Lover of Killers, Monkeys, and Commies; Disgrace to Legal Profession!.” “Murderer-Coddler John Paul Stevens disqualified from Supreme Court at 80!”

HuffPo wrote:Cancer Patient Who Blamed Obamacare For 'Unaffordable' Costs Will Actually Save Money

[The Kochs'] Americans for Prosperity...is running Obamacare attack ads featuring a cancer patient who claimed her treatments were "unaffordable" under the new health law. On Monday, The Detroit News reported that the patient will actually save more than $1,000 a year.

Julie Boonstra says in the anti-Obamacare ad that was diagnosed with leukemia five years ago, and her health care plan was canceled when Obamacare went into effect.

"Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it's unaffordable," she said.

Before her plan was canceled, Boonstra was paying a $1,100 monthly premium. That's $13,200 a year, without adding out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and prescription drugs. But under her new plan, the Blue Cross Premier Gold, Boonstra's premiums are down to $571 a month, and out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100. That's a maximum annual expense of $11,952 a year.

According to The Detroit News, Boonstra said it “can’t be true” that her new coverage is cheaper than her old....

Boonstra told The Detroit News she had never been politically active before joining the anti-Obamacare campaign. The newspaper reported her ex-husband, Mark Boonstra, had served as chair of the Washtenaw County GOP, and was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012.

drsmooth wrote:Stupid people are stupid, and the stupidest ones are stupid because they want to be (though in this woman's case there are glaring signs that other motives enter in here):

HuffPo wrote:Cancer Patient Who Blamed Obamacare For 'Unaffordable' Costs Will Actually Save Money

[The Kochs'] Americans for Prosperity...is running Obamacare attack ads featuring a cancer patient who claimed her treatments were "unaffordable" under the new health law. On Monday, The Detroit News reported that the patient will actually save more than $1,000 a year.

Julie Boonstra says in the anti-Obamacare ad that was diagnosed with leukemia five years ago, and her health care plan was canceled when Obamacare went into effect.

"Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it's unaffordable," she said.

Before her plan was canceled, Boonstra was paying a $1,100 monthly premium. That's $13,200 a year, without adding out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and prescription drugs. But under her new plan, the Blue Cross Premier Gold, Boonstra's premiums are down to $571 a month, and out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100. That's a maximum annual expense of $11,952 a year.

According to The Detroit News, Boonstra said it “can’t be true” that her new coverage is cheaper than her old....

Boonstra told The Detroit News she had never been politically active before joining the anti-Obamacare campaign. The newspaper reported her ex-husband, Mark Boonstra, had served as chair of the Washtenaw County GOP, and was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012.

yep, she's just a regular Julie Q Public, she is

drsmooth wrote:Stupid people are stupid, and the stupidest ones are stupid because they want to be (though in this woman's case there are glaring signs that other motives enter in here):

HuffPo wrote:Cancer Patient Who Blamed Obamacare For 'Unaffordable' Costs Will Actually Save Money

[The Kochs'] Americans for Prosperity...is running Obamacare attack ads featuring a cancer patient who claimed her treatments were "unaffordable" under the new health law. On Monday, The Detroit News reported that the patient will actually save more than $1,000 a year.

Julie Boonstra says in the anti-Obamacare ad that was diagnosed with leukemia five years ago, and her health care plan was canceled when Obamacare went into effect.

"Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it's unaffordable," she said.

Before her plan was canceled, Boonstra was paying a $1,100 monthly premium. That's $13,200 a year, without adding out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and prescription drugs. But under her new plan, the Blue Cross Premier Gold, Boonstra's premiums are down to $571 a month, and out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100. That's a maximum annual expense of $11,952 a year.

According to The Detroit News, Boonstra said it “can’t be true” that her new coverage is cheaper than her old....

Boonstra told The Detroit News she had never been politically active before joining the anti-Obamacare campaign. The newspaper reported her ex-husband, Mark Boonstra, had served as chair of the Washtenaw County GOP, and was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012.

yep, she's just a regular Julie Q Public, she is