| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 27 2013 13:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You think Obama called the Sheriff to released the prisoners, really? The states will be hit the hardest when Federal funds start getting cut. They're in federal prisons, yes? This is nothing but fear mongering. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 27 2013 14:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: They're in federal prisons, yes? This is nothing but fear mongering. I posted this link earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/ In it it says: The federal prison system gets cut by $355 million. So eh, something's gotta go. In this case, it's illegal immigrants. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 27 2013 14:22 Souma wrote: I posted this link earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/ In it it says: So eh, something's gotta go. In this case, it's illegal immigrants. I'd be amazed if they could actually justify it. The sequester hasn't hit yet and it's something like a 5% hit to their budget. Their core functions shouldn't be that impaired. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
On February 27 2013 13:21 Sermokala wrote: He was a sitting duck president and the president elect wanted a bill passed though. Could you imagine if he just dawdeled his thumbs while Rome burned to the ground? No one actually thinks that TARP or the bank bailout was good policy at all. The fact is that the world was on fire and only the Us government was capable of putting out that fire. During the Korean war when there was a strike threatened in the steel industry the president just nationalized the steel industry. Good presidents know when to throw out the playbook and do what must be done. I think you have the TARP timeline wrong. Lehman brothers went belly up on September 15th. At that point pretty much everyone panicked. TARP was proposed on the 19th by the treasury secretary. Keep in mind that this is still before the election. While congress was debating about TARP, on the 24th McCain suspended his campaign and called a meeting in the white house about what to do and you can read about it -Here-. It ended up getting passed and signed on october 3rd, about 2 and a half weeks after Lehman went under, which in congress time is absurdly fast, especially given that it was spending almost 600 billion dollars on something almost nobody liked. Would bush have signed it even if Obama or McCain had not liked it? I think so. His treasury secretary proposed it. He went on prime time television to call for it's passage (Watch it here). Lastly even if only 60% of the house voted for TARP, I think they could have overriden a veto if it actually came to that (it had 74 senate votes). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's socialism at its worst, how could it not be obama's doing | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 27 2013 14:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I'd be amazed if they could actually justify it. The sequester hasn't hit yet and it's something like a 5% hit to their budget. Their core functions shouldn't be that impaired. Prisons have already been having rough times financially. No matter the case, when you lose hundreds of millions you gotta cut something. Whether freeing illegal immigrants is the best choice, I have no idea, but something's gotta go. But yes, the sequester has yet to hit so it does seem like there's a bit of an agenda hidden. Either that or they just want to get things started before they have to fire people and have less employees to get things done. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On February 27 2013 14:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I'd be amazed if they could actually justify it. The sequester hasn't hit yet and it's something like a 5% hit to their budget. Their core functions shouldn't be that impaired. What do you think they do with the money that they can lose 5% of their total budget and not have to reduce inmate populations? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 27 2013 15:39 Goumindong wrote: What do you think they do with the money that they can lose 5% of their total budget and not have to reduce inmate populations? It depends how lean their operations already are. 5% is not that big of a hit and the actual cash cost of additional inmates is probably pretty low. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
Secondly, it's quite possible that the only crime many illegal immigrants have committed is being in the States illegally. If they have a clean slate otherwise, I'd rather see them back on the streets (and possibly, contributing to our economy by continuing as low-priced labor) than citizens who committed armed robbery or something like that. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On February 26 2013 18:41 oneofthem wrote: i've already accepted the eventuality of a death by arterial fatness. bring on dem triple whoppers Please don't take the rest of the world with you. People eat too much meat, and low quality meat at that. Soy and corn subsidies are basically direct sponsoring of the government of bad eating habits through the production of environment destroying crops. I can think of better uses for money. I found a study related to this, it makes for pretty sad reading. As usual, special interests dictate US policy to the detriment of not only their population, but the rest of the world also. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 27 2013 18:25 Grumbels wrote: Please don't take the rest of the world with you. People eat too much meat, and low quality meat at that. Soy and corn subsidies are basically direct sponsoring of the government of bad eating habits through the production of environment destroying crops. I can think of better uses for money. I found a study related to this, it makes for pretty sad reading. As usual, special interests dictate US policy to the detriment of not only their population, but the rest of the world also. oy. seems like i'm pretty ignorant on the topic. however, if it comes to pass that agribusiness gives way to organic farms, a lot more people will have to become farmers. this is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. gardening is fun | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On February 27 2013 14:50 DeltaX wrote: I think you have the TARP timeline wrong. Lehman brothers went belly up on September 15th. At that point pretty much everyone panicked. TARP was proposed on the 19th by the treasury secretary. Keep in mind that this is still before the election. While congress was debating about TARP, on the 24th McCain suspended his campaign and called a meeting in the white house about what to do and you can read about it -Here-. It ended up getting passed and signed on october 3rd, about 2 and a half weeks after Lehman went under, which in congress time is absurdly fast, especially given that it was spending almost 600 billion dollars on something almost nobody liked. Would bush have signed it even if Obama or McCain had not liked it? I think so. His treasury secretary proposed it. He went on prime time television to call for it's passage (Watch it here). Lastly even if only 60% of the house voted for TARP, I think they could have overriden a veto if it actually came to that (it had 74 senate votes). Then its even more reason why bush didn't really have to be for tarp and whatnot to sign it into law. Lehman brothers (a bank that had been running from before the civil war) started the fire and everyone was freaking out that their bank might be next. TARP stopped that fire and made people sure that they could put money in a bank and not get robbed. I don't get where this tarp is now bush's idea came from. | ||
|
Reedjr
United States228 Posts
On February 28 2013 00:27 Sermokala wrote: Then its even more reason why bush didn't really have to be for tarp and whatnot to sign it into law. Lehman brothers (a bank that had been running from before the civil war) started the fire and everyone was freaking out that their bank might be next. TARP stopped that fire and made people sure that they could put money in a bank and not get robbed. I don't get where this tarp is now bush's idea came from. I think it's less people claiming that it was literally Bush's idea (although between his approval and his calls to pass it, it seems he at least thought it was a good idea) and more that people discrediting the idea that it was Obama's bill. Considering how it originated with a member of Bush's cabinet, I don't really see what's up for debate here. It seems as though you're reading this as Bush (the person's) idea, not the Bush administration's idea. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On February 27 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: however, if it comes to pass that agribusiness gives way to organic farms, a lot more people will have to become farmers. last I checked, the main problem with our society is that we're having trouble coming up with useful things for people to do... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
Senate Republicans are mulling a proposal to cancel the $85 billion in automatic sequester cuts and shift power onto President Obama, granting him the authority to make the cuts–and take the fall–himself. The plan comes with just days until the March 1 deadline on the sequester, the Washington-speak term for draconian, automatic budget cuts. But Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is calling the plan a political ploy as congressional Republicans maneuver to shift the blame on Obama. “It’s a game,” Sanders told Jansing & Co. ”The president himself becomes the bad guy, he owns the sequestration. He’s the guy who’s blamed for cutting defense or Head Start.” President Obama will host a White House meeting with leaders of both houses on Friday, in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the sequester. The meeting would be the first for top Republican and Democratic leaders to meet in-person this year. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, 52% of Americans feel the automatic spending cuts are a bad idea, leaving only 21% who support the sequester. The poll also showed Obama with a far stronger political standing with the public, as only 29% of respondents say they agree “with most” of what Republicans have offered. Granted, it's an MSNBC piece with quotes from mah dude Bernie, but I really wonder how likely this would be. I guess we'll have to wait until after the meeting on Friday to find out. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 28 2013 02:36 sam!zdat wrote: last I checked, the main problem with our society is that we're having trouble coming up with useful things for people to do... i'm for it, absolutely. it needs to happen with some rule changes though, such as a much shorter work week. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 28 2013 04:20 farvacola wrote: Senate GOP devise new plan to shift sequester blame on Obama Granted, it's an MSNBC piece with quotes from mah dude Bernie, but I really wonder how likely this would be. I guess we'll have to wait until after the meeting on Friday to find out. I understand the politics of why Obama doesn't want to have to make the choices... but wow, that seems like the kind of budget authority wet dreams are made of. He really should just grab that ball and run with it. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 27 2013 12:43 Sermokala wrote: I don't think anyone is fooling themselves into thinking that the bailout and TARP was an actual idea that Bush had. It was Obamas bill and plan that he didn't want to wait until he took office so bush signed it into law on behalf of obama. Bush signed TARP, which was designed by his own Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, into law.... on behalf of candidate Obama? what are you on? | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On February 28 2013 08:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I understand the politics of why Obama doesn't want to have to make the choices... but wow, that seems like the kind of budget authority wet dreams are made of. He really should just grab that ball and run with it. Obama frankly doesn't have the sort of chutzpah to make it worthwhile (if indeed anyone does). A president like LBJ on the other hand would probably go so far as cutting office supplies for Republican congressional offices but not Democrats and all sorts of petty shit to get his point across. | ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
I was sent this petition in an email and signed it. Figured I'd share it on TL. If anyone else is interested, here it is: http://pac.signon.org/sign/paycuts-for-congress-1?source=mo&id=63488-25042616-C8uwESx | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Rex vs INexorable
GgMaChine vs HeRoMaRinE
Reynor vs herO
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
