• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/farm-bill-billionaires_n_4256365.html

.....

Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) both cited the Bible last week to argue that while individual Christians have a responsibility to feed the poor, the federal government does not.
"We're all here on this committee making decisions about other people's money," Fincher said.

LaMalfa said that while it's nice for politicians to boast about how they've helped their constituents, "That's all someone else's money."

Yet both men's farms have received millions in federal assistance, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that advocates for more conservation and fewer subsidies. LaMalfa's family rice farm has received more than $5 million in commodity subsidies since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department, while Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million since then.

Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574 and LaMalfa's got $188,570.
Click to expand...

It's probably pretty embarrassing for those guys to be subjected to stories that point out what staggering hypocritical bastards they are, so Congress is trying to change the law to make things a lot less transparent. As HuffPost reported:

The House and Senate farm bill drafts eliminate most direct payments and instead boost subsidies for farmers to buy crop insurance policies that protect against losses from weather or price changes. Since the government divulges the names of people who get the payments but not the insurance subsidies, the Environmental Working Group's Scott Faber says the bills as they stand now would reduce government transparency.

"Although much ballyhooed, the end of direct payments really heralds the replacement of an inequitable and transparent safety net with a more inequitable and less transparent safety net," Faber said. "Crop insurance subsidies have no limits on who can receive them and the amount they can receive."
Click to expand...

Both chambers of Congress have passed versions of the farm bill, and right now a conference committee is working to resolve differences between them. So you should click over to the EWG's analysis and take one last look at the billionaire beneficiaries of taxpayer farm handouts before our ability to track them transparently vanishes in the fog of this new law.

“Farm programs that benefit billionaires are indefensible and irresponsible," writes Alex Rindler, the EWG policy associate who authored the analysis. "The information shows that our broken policies propped up the richest few at the expense of taxpayers and struggling families – that’s a backwards vision that no one should be proud of.”

Here are some highlights:......
Click to expand...
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

link
Duffy’s claims for staff salaries, office expenses, travel and accommodations in the National Capital region were $174,262.00 for the six-month period from March to August 2012, before his expenses came under investigation. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the publicity around him earlier this year, he claimed just $59,658.26 during the same six-month period in 2013. The difference of $114,603.74 came from reduced spending in all categories and reimbursement of some living expenses. (He did not charge for living expenses in the national capital region during those six months of 2013).

A Postmedia News analysis of senators’ expense claims shows that 58 of the 88 senators who were members of the Senate in both 2012 and 2013 claimed less from March 1 to August 31, 2013 than they had during those same six months in 2012. The Senate sat for five more days in the 2012 period.

Thirty-eight senators trimmed spending by more than $10,000.

In total, senators spent a combined $1.2 million less from March to August 2013 than they had in the same period in 2012. (But note, there also were fewer senators claiming expenses. Between March 2012 to August 2013, 15 senators — not included in the 88 analyzed — either retired or passed away. Eleven senators — again, not included in the 88 analyzed — were appointed.)

“There’s no question that when this thing blew up, senators became far more careful,” says Donald Savoie, a Canada research chair in public administration and governance at University of Moncton in New Brunswick, who said he’s “not at all” surprised that senator spending seems to be dropping.

“They don’t want to live through what Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Brazeau are living through at the moment — they’re living through hell. They’ll want to avoid that at all costs.”
Click to expand...
Funny how the difference between 2013 and 2012 were greater for Duffy than the others.
"We must have Senate Reform," Harper said seven years ago...
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

link
Harper has asked the country’s top court to decide whether he has the power to unilaterally drive change “aimed at enhancing the legitimacy of the institution” — in the words of his federal lawyers — or whether he needs the assent of provinces, and if so, how many?

But with all 10 provinces, three territories, two francophone groups and two senators weighing in, chances are pretty good that the cushy Senate will come out looking like a misunderstood cornerstone of Canadian democracy.

Even many bedrock conservatives, such as Alberta’s Wildrose party Leader Danielle Smith, conceded last week at the federal Conservative party convention that the Senate has a legitimate purpose: to represent regional interests where an elected government might overlook them.

In an interview with the Star, Smith said: “As an opposition politician who deals with a majority government able to make decisions without any sober second thought, I do have some hope that having a second chamber as oversight to House of Commons decision-making can and should be made to work.”

Smith, like many, just wishes the second chamber were more accountable. In her eyes, an elected, effective Senate would be that.
Click to expand...
An elected Senate would be worlds better than what we have now, but the problem is still this: generally speaking, if the Tories hold the popular opinion polls, they'll likely also get the majority of the Senate votes, if there were any. It'd be almost the same as the PM stacking the Senate, like this one, (and most others before him) did.
What we need more than an elected Senate is term limits. Five years max per term, and a means to remove a Senator for egregious abuse of their position, such as over $200G in false or illegal expense claims, or living in Florida all year long and never taking part in Senate duties.
Nice to see these hearings FINALLY begin, but this is the same PM who also said that the courts are the enemy of Senate Reform, so I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. IF it happens, I'll be pleasantly surprised, and willing to give him the kudos for finally getting it done. Until he shows me the money, I don't believe it.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

link
Michael Gismondi asked Trudeau: "Would a Trudeau-led federal government reconsider the slew of new mandatory minimum sentences recently rolled out by the (Conservatives)?"

Trudeau responded: "I (and the Liberal party) trust the judiciary to do their jobs well, so yes."

But that's as far as he would go. Trudeau's office did not respond to requests from QMI Agency for more information about which particular provisions he might reconsider, and he did not provide any more information to his 270,000 Twitter followers.

In two separate cases in the past few weeks, sitting judges made their views known on two "mandatory" provisions enacted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

In Kitchener, Ont., a judge said he was "embarrassed" to levy a mandatory victim surcharge fine on a homeless man. The Conservatives now require a mandatory fine of at least $100 to be paid by anyone convicted of a crime, the proceeds of which are used to fund victims' support programs.

In Winnipeg, a judge said the mandatory minimum sentence for those who commit crimes with a firearm amounted, in the case at hand, to "cruel and unusual punishment."
Click to expand...
Your "increase in unreported crimes" at work - basically a victim tax, imposed by the government claiming to be all about justice, while their anointed ones rip us off with hundreds of thousands in illegal claims, and their hand-picked mayors smoke crack in a drunken stupor on camera. Lest we forget losing $3.2B and spending $46B on new military jets that can't even fly in the Arctic, not to mention closing already over burdened Veterans Affairs offices.
If the Tories expect to continue, Harper needs to step aside so they can get someone who actually IS a conservative, and won't stand for the Hudak's and the Ford's ruining the brand.
 
The USA has 11 nations.

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states-u-s-is-really-11-nations-says-author?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

map_custom-7636b2427382cc547b583285526a2f3f0adeed13-s40-c85.jpg
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

blacksheep said:
link

An elected Senate would be worlds better than what we have now, but the problem is still this: generally speaking, if the Tories hold the popular opinion polls, they'll likely also get the majority of the Senate votes, if there were any. It'd be almost the same as the PM stacking the Senate, like this one, (and most others before him) did.
What we need more than an elected Senate is term limits. Five years max per term, and a means to remove a Senator for egregious abuse of their position, such as over $200G in false or illegal expense claims, or living in Florida all year long and never taking part in Senate duties.
Nice to see these hearings FINALLY begin, but this is the same PM who also said that the courts are the enemy of Senate Reform, so I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. IF it happens, I'll be pleasantly surprised, and willing to give him the kudos for finally getting it done. Until he shows me the money, I don't believe it.
Click to expand...
Every Senator appointed by Harper has agreed to an 8 year term limit on their position if the Senate was to be reformed. Nice to see you agree with Harper.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Lest we forget losing $3.2B and spending $46B on new military jets that can't even fly in the Arctic
Click to expand...
For the millionth time (I hope you know what a million is, by now)...

That 3.2b hasn't been misspent or lost. Read the actual auditors report. And $46b has not been spent on jets.

You spew nothing but lies.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

blacksheep said:
Today's the PERFECT day to make this point about our PM:

A good speech and a nice photo op for today, but the words are quite empty (as usual).
Because in March of this year, this happened:


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vetera...trict-office-closures-1.1481790#ixzz2kNRlhOnL

A nice thanks from your federal government. Sorry, your local Veteran's Affairs office is closing so that we may better serve you.
And let's talk about that point, for a second.
The Windsor office had four Case Managers for 2,600 cases.
The Sydney, NS office had 13 Case Managers for 4,200 cases.
Let's review the above quote again:

The offices they are closing are ALREADY well beyond their stated "service standard."
Windsor vets will now have to drive half the way to Toronto to go to the London office. A two-hour drive, barring traffic.
Sydney vets now have to drive five hours to Halifax.
I wonder what their caseloads are?

Ya, right...
Good job, Harper. Thumbs up to all those pennies you saved by closing nine offices. Lest we forget.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest - I have no knowledge of this particular issue. My guess is that aside from that article you don't either.

Clearly cutting veterans services is bad - but streamlining veterans services isn't. Whether something carries the weight of Veterans or not, if it can be improved then it must be.

How often to case managers even meet with Veterans anyways?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

One of my grandfathers is a WW2 vet. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about veteran services these days, but as far as I've heard, they've treated him pretty well.

And while he's been provided a bunch of stuff from the government (for example, hearing aids, hard-of-hearing telephone), I don't recall him even having to go meet a "case manager".
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

It might be something for newer veterans - I'm really not sure.

My grandmother still has her driveway cleared, grass-cut, and even in some cases groceries delivered - all because of my grandfathers (RIP) significant service.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

corksens said:
Every Senator appointed by Harper has agreed to an 8 year term limit on their position if the Senate was to be reformed. Nice to see you agree with Harper.
Click to expand...

So a term of roughly twice what the PM who appointed them gets? No, I don't agree, and neither does any other sane Canadian.
Three, maybe four years, tops.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

blacksheep said:
link

Your "increase in unreported crimes" at work - basically a victim tax, imposed by the government claiming to be all about justice, while their anointed ones rip us off with hundreds of thousands in illegal claims, and their hand-picked mayors smoke crack in a drunken stupor on camera. Lest we forget losing $3.2B and spending $46B on new military jets that can't even fly in the Arctic, not to mention closing already over burdened Veterans Affairs offices.
If the Tories expect to continue, Harper needs to step aside so they can get someone who actually IS a conservative, and won't stand for the Hudak's and the Ford's ruining the brand.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you were aware, because it's pretty obvious judging by this post that you are not, but municipal politicians have no party affiliation.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

corksens said:
For the millionth time (I hope you know what a million is, by now)...

That 3.2b hasn't been misspent or lost. Read the actual auditors report. And $46b has not been spent on jets.

You spew nothing but lies.
Click to expand...

The actual auditor's report shows that amount unaccounted for.
He still wants the F35s, and that's what they would cost over their lifetime.
Own up to it.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Also, there was no $46 billion spent on jets. Not one dime beyond the research costs and contract discussions. So your faux outrage about that is amusing to me too.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

blacksheep said:
The actual auditor's report shows that amount unaccounted for.
He still wants the F35s, and that's what they would cost over their lifetime.
Own up to it.
Click to expand...

And they cancelled the contract. You should be happy, no? I'd rather have a government that can admit when it's wrong, which is exactly what happened in this instance.

Everyone wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top