|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I'd like the idea of a VAT... if I didn't belive that it woud just become another add-on to the existing Code instead of replacing part of it.
|
On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false.
The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow.
Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'.
|
The economic PTSD thing is interesting, because I remember they used to say the same thing about Japan in 90s, that the Japanese started seeing bubbles everywhere and refused to believe anything was real growth. I hope we're not going down the same road as that.
|
Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year.
Source
|
On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source
It's great how we have just accepted that 60 is the new 51 in the senate. These filibusters have gone way past reasonable.
|
On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source
I doubt it would matter. The case would simply go back up to the Supreme Court again on the free exercise clause.
|
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution.
|
On July 17 2014 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source I doubt it would matter. The case would simply go back up to the Supreme Court again on the free exercise clause.
Even if that was the case it doesn't say much about the record setting numbers of filibusters on damn near everything. Some of the most pointless to me are the ones on nominees that eventually get through anyway, so the filibusters were nothing more than theatrically wasted time, money, and efforts.
|
On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution.
Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster).
|
On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster).
Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives).
|
On July 17 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster). Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives).
It became really common after the 2010 election, for sure. While I agree that it's gone too far, I do think Obama reached too far while Dems controlled Congress and some of the opposition is deserved.
|
On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution.
It's a matter of perspective or whatnot. Here in United States it's not weird at all. It's undoubtedly frustrating if something you want is held up on a procedural vote, but that's how the legislature works. If it seems like the rules seem to make it difficult for the majority party to pass laws, I'd say that's entirely the point.
|
On July 17 2014 09:17 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. It's a matter of perspective or whatnot. Here in United States it's not weird at all. It's undoubtedly frustrating if something you want is held up on a procedural vote, but that's how the legislature works. If it seems like the rules seem to make it difficult for the majority party to pass laws, I'd say that's entirely the point.
But not the way it has been being used during the Obama administration. It's current use is clearly ridiculous.
|
On July 17 2014 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster). Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives). It became really common after the 2010 election, for sure. While I agree that it's gone too far, I do think Obama reached too far while Dems controlled Congress and some of the opposition is deserved.
It had nothing to do with what Obama did. They had a meeting after the election and agreed they would oppose every single thing he did and then they did it. It didn't matter whose idea it was or if they previously supported it but if he put his name on it they would say no and do everything they can to fight it.
|
On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'.
My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983.
The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion.
Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities?
|
On July 17 2014 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster). Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives). It became really common after the 2010 election, for sure. While I agree that it's gone too far, I do think Obama reached too far while Dems controlled Congress and some of the opposition is deserved.
Did you miss Republicans saying their primary, possibly even only goal was to make Obama a one term president?
They've hated him since the day he was sworn into office and have never had any desire to work with him at all.
|
This peevish "you just hate him" (sometimes with casual racism charge thrown in) has really taken root in the minds of the Left. 10/10 schoolyard kids agree that Johnny is mean and Mrs. Williams is unfair. If irrational hatred is the best you can muster, pack up your bags and go home. Leave that "discussion" to the park playground, where it still carries some weight. We're having walls of text ideas discussion for quite some time here.
|
On July 17 2014 11:43 Danglars wrote:
This peevish "you just hate him" (sometimes with casual racism charge thrown in) has really taken root in the minds of the Left. 10/10 schoolyard kids agree that Johnny is mean and Mrs. Williams is unfair. If irrational hatred is the best you can muster, pack up your bags and go home. Leave that "discussion" to the park playground, where it still carries some weight. We're having walls of text ideas discussion for quite some time here.
But shouldn't it be clear that the GOP is using the Filibuster on things that are clearly not worthy of it? If not out of spite, why? (this case, sure - but if you look at all the items that the GOP after Obama has been using the filibuster on... it's hard to disagree that they haven't been using it as intended)
|
It'd be one thing if it was being used to force compromise from the Democrats, but instead it's used to block any policy that isn't on the Republican agenda.
|
On July 17 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source It's great how we have just accepted that 60 is the new 51 in the senate. These filibusters have gone way past reasonable.
But you're okay with the political posturing, that Democrats knew Republicans would filibuster but made them do it anyways just so it might piss off some single women enough to vote? The last three sentences make it pretty clear this wasn't a sincere effort, just a move to score some talking points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
